Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johan Van Mullem


 * 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 keep. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 08:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Johan Van Mullem

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NARTIST. Run-of-the-mill artist. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 14:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 14:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 14:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete one source other than his personal website is not enough to pass GNG. Nothing even close to showing notability for an artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * comment as while it is a weak article it appears there is middling coverage http://johanvanmullem.com/press with the most relevant being Artnet and RTBF. As well some of the shows include a solo museum show in Belgium: http://www.museedixelles.irisnet.be/images/menus/les-expositions/expositions-precedentes/johan-van-mullem-menu-2-col/view--Theredproject (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Not sure how the nominator struggled to find sources: passes GNG. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The first two are interviews, not WP:SIGCOV, the third reads like a press release, and the fourth is just a listing, albeit with a photo. Edwardx (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. The coverage provided by the interviews is significant. As stated in Interviews: "An independent interviewer represents the 'world at large' giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability." One is, of course, free to deem the style of the third source presented by Indy beetle to be that of a press release, but the style in which sources are written is not part of the criteria for deletion. I see no reason to assume that this text is an actual press release – for one thing, in that case it would have been a press release by Loo & Lou and you'd expect to find some of the same language back in the, but that text is completely different. --Lambiam 23:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources identified by Indy and Lambiam. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve per coverage already linked in this discussion; improvement is necessary for the article to meet WP:BLP standards. Nanophosis (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.