Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Guay


 * 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Joseph Guay

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Possibly non-notable artist (I'm not certain). The article is written like an advert, with a bunch of improperly-formatted URLs which don't appear to me to satisfy WP:GNG. A Gnews search threw up only two articles which might satisfy GNG: Curbed and Billbord, but I am not sure that Curbed is an RS. Note that the text was pasted in one blob with the edit summary Uploaded the entire BIO for "Joseph Guay" which implies a possible COI or copyvio (though I haven't found a source for any copyvio). If kept, this needs big cleanup. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The Curbed source seems okay. I've read this exhaustive New York Times report on the source; NYT mentions: "To create that balance of power, the information needs to be reliable, and Curbed has made strides in ensuring the accuracy of its reporting." That, combined with the Billboard source and exhaustive reviews on the subject's work like this make me tend towards Keep. The subject, in my opinion, seems to qualify on GNG and perhaps more so on WP:NARTIST, having originated innovatively new concepts, which have been covered by multiple reliable sources. Of course, you are right. The article needs to be cleaned up significantly if kept. But this is not a TNT case. Thanks. Lourdes  10:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 12:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Promotional blah-blah-blah with no sign of a single tangible accomplishment.  Reliable sources are very thin at best.  This is the only article edited by its major contributor.  --Lockley (talk) 03:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep and reduce to a stub. In its current state it's almost entirely promotional garbage with an unquestionable COI; how does the editor know that his sister is a well-established esthetician if not through some personal connection? The peacockery is insufferable and many of the references are noting but announcements. However, the subject does meet some of the criteria in WP:CREATIVE; his work has been the subject of some critical attention and his work is in notable collections. Hack away, please. Mduvekot (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a well established artist in the Atlanta community and his photography is known in international publications credibility as an artist and photographer: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Underwood (talk • contribs) 19:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep He just about meets WP:GNG through the Billboard article and various Atlanta-area publications (primarily writing about his wall project). A lot of the cited references in the article are weak and a couple look like press releases. Taking photos of Elton John isn't itself a sign of notability, although John is well-known as an important collector of photography. The article and some of the keep comments over-sell him (posting a bunch of links to Google searches does not establish notability). But we should try and evaluate it dispassionately and while it's arguable I think he's just about above the bar. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2017 (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.