Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kieran Palmer


 * 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.  Singu larity  01:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Kieran Palmer

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article has been speedily deleted for WP:CSD five times since October of 2007, being recreated by two single purpose accounts, User:Cobass and (this time) User:Spartakss. (Eight times if you count Kieran ramsey palmer and Kieran Ramsey Palmer.) There is no verification of notability here, and I can’t find any. I get nothing significant on Horonism or Church of Horus. While the name hits 142 distinct, I find nothing to verify notability for an artist of the name, although I did hit on a number of myspace style pages and a self-added student profile, here. Of the external links on the page, there are currently 3 primary websites and 2 blogs, &. There is a list of exhibitions, here, that does not seem to add up to the notability guidelines on creative professionals.

Recreated today, the article was tagged for notability, but the tag was removed by the creator without any attempt to address the concern.

I believe that unless reliable sources can be provided to verify that this individual meets the relevant notability guidelines, the article should be deleted and this spot and related titles protected against further recreation until it can be demonstrated that such reliable sources exist. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe this page was already up for six months and has been deleted. The page now has more references than it did.

This guy is an emerging artist in the underground art scene in Birmingham UK. He is becoming very important due to his concerns about the way information is presented.

I feel he does match the 'notability guidelines on creative professionals' as he is a co founder of two fairly big art groups in the Midlands, UK and has created a group 'the church of horus' that has a following of nearly 140 people worldwide.

As I say this guy operates mainly underground but has a great following from those who are involved and 'in the know'

Perhaps allow the page to stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.14.105 (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC) Please reconsider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.14.105 (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC) — 77.100.14.105 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The artist has a clear input to the art that is going on in the Midlands, Britain. It is quite difficult to justify the standing of this page as Palmer's fame and contribution to the art scene here is more wrapped up in 'word of mouth' as opposed to published review.

From my research in creating the page I have found that he has a definite presence and is recognized to be having a serious input.

There is a book being published in June this year which is the 'doctrine' of the church he created. Again, this is to be distributed in the form of street art as opposed to shelve sales.

Thankyou for your time and messege moonriddengirl. I hope we can sort this out and the page can remain! :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartakss (talk • contribs) 22:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The issue here is the need to document that he is recognized as having a serious input. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, reporting on facts published in secondary sources. It is not a publisher of first instance. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. The keeps above look like they're all from sockpuppets.  Acro  X   23:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. A google search isn't definitive, but I'd expect a currently notable practicing artist to have some Web presence other than MySpace, CVs and the odd student exhibition. Kate (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 06:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it seem genuine. If he is up and coming why not? And I have looked into this guy and he does not seem like he has a bunch of 'student myspace pages' and what not. He has a clear web presence, especially horonsism (Speling?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.11.73 (talk) 09:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)  — 77.100.11.73 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete per all the above. "up and coming" doesn't mean notable and the article doesn't assert his notability to any of our policies/guidelines. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  freshacconci  speak to me  11:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per the well researched and argued nomination. The hurdle for proving notability is significantly higher than the hurdle for proving that one exists. Unfortunately for the person/people creating the article, wikipedia's criteria for inclusion is notability. Debate (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No assertion of notability. The first 2 weblinks seem dead. Johnbod (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I understand that wikipedia is a tertiary source. It is a shame that he operates underground in a similar way to Heath Bunting, in so much that his work is important, but is largely unknown at the moment throughout the world.  I stress he is an important figure, (which is why I have tried to create the article so many times!) but I understand the regulations.

The Church he has created though is publishing an official doctrine in June 2008. Would this count? And the Church now has 130 members worldwide. It has also been given residencies throughout the Midlands area over the coming summer. (I do not stalk this guy, honestly!)

The first two links are dead because I put them on wrong, :-s I tried to edit them but was emailed by wikipedia stating I was unable to edit this page.

Thanks for your time guys. spartakss
 * Comment I'm afraid that publications by the church would not count as independent sources, as he is its founder. If the book receives enough notability to confirm notability for the church, then he might at some point gain press from that, but the book in itself is not likely to aid in establishing notability. You really need reliable sources to confirm that he is an important figure. As to the notice you received, you were evidently prevented from changing the sources because blogspot is on a Wikipedia blacklist. You can read more about it here. It is evidently blacklisted for newer users as problematic with regards to point 11, here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom...Modernist (talk) 00:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 01:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete and, since it keeps getting recreated no matter how many times it's deleted, salt it like a snail. Qworty (talk) 06:53, 25 May 2008 (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.