Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dustin Robbins


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Dustin Robbins

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Does not appear to be notable from the information presented here. Cassandra 73 (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC) *Delete. Not notable - Does not meet qualifications for notability --SuperHappyPerson (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable person. References are from non-reliable sources. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Response: Hi Catfish Jim - In response to the sources not being reliable - two of my sources, Slug Magazine and Salt Lake City Weekly, are listed here on Wikipedia as notable publications. Also, the Association of Professional Piercers is a highly regarded association in the industry with very stringent qualifications for membership. They are most definitely a reliable source. Qquackk (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Thank you for taking this to AfD instead of just deleting the article. I am new, and just learning, but I have more articles I want to add in the same "alternative" industry, so I did a lot of research on what is and isn't notable, hoping that I would be able to demonstrate it with limited "main-stream" media sources. The reasons I believe this article should not be deleted are below.
 * I've added a new (March, 2010) source which details, to some degree, the notability of the subject's piercing technique (free-hand and 100% disposable), which is very unique to the art form and is only practiced by a handfull of body piercers in the world. Since the Body Modification industry itself is very small, to have such a presence as the subject has in his small industry is what gives him notability. By my understanding of the criteria for inclusion, if an individual is notable in their respective field, then they are allowed inclusion.


 * I understand that the sources for his work do not seem credible, as they are mainly online and 1st person accounts, however, they are independent sources from well known online news and information sources within the Body Modification industry, that back over a decade. Unfortunately, in an industry that is not "main-stream", main-stream media coverage is not readily available. I do know that there has been quite a bit more media coverage on the individual, I have just not been able to find exact references or links, since it is mostly television/news coverage.


 * In the notability criteria (WP:BIO), it states under Biographies, that an individual must have been nominated for and/or given an award. The subject has received an award for his business, with the source I noted being a credible secondary source (a newspaper). Qquackk (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * question I gather the award is "best new piercing studio 2006" from the Salt Lake City Weekly I'm not all that sure this sort of local award would be regarded as a sufficiently important award to qualify.  How many piercing studios are there in SLC?   [[User:DGG| DGG] ( talk ) 09:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Response: Hi DGG - SLC has many piercing and piercing/tattoo studios. Google Maps Local results have 171 results for "Salt Lake City, UT piercing" - Salt Lake City, UT piercing on Google. I should also note that the award is for Best of Utah, not just SLC. I will add that to the article. Another, more recent story, which is also referenced in the article is from a different local magazine - Slug Magazine's "Iris Body Piercing makes amazing happen" - March 2010. Both Slug Magazine and Salt Lake City Weekly are reliable sources, considering they are listed here on Wikipedia. Qquackk (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * question Does the subject fulfil any of the criteria of WP:ARTIST? Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 13:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Response: Hi Catfish Jim - Yes, the subject does. Both - "1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors." and - "2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique." For the first, the subject is well known in his profession and cited in many online and print publications, as noted in the article. For the second, the subject is known for practicing a very unique form of his art - a free-hand (without clamps) technique that uses 100% disposable equipment, which only a few shops in the U.S. use, as noted in the article. For reference see: Piercing.org which is the website of Brian Skellie, who is a board member of the Association of Professional Piercers who recommends only a few shops, one of which is Iris Piercing, the subject's shop. Also see: Slug Magazine Article, which also notes the unique way that the subjects performs piercings.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qquackk (talk • contribs) 16:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment from nominator: the Slugmag article is about the studio, not specifically Robbins, who is one of three partners of this business. The award is also for the studio. There isn't anything that indicates notability independent of the studio, or that significantly picks him out above the other two partners. The sources and evidence supplied by Qquackk may go some way towards establishing notability for the studio, but if the business is notable (I'm not saying it definitely is or isn't) that won't automatically confer notability on the people associated with it. Cassandra 73 (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 08:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * 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.