Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Alford (artist)


 * 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   Incubate. The consensus below is that sources may well exists but as they have not yet been identified the article is to be sent to the incubator while interested editors look for them. Article will be located at Article Incubator/Michael Alford (artist). Eluchil404 (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Michael Alford (artist)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

British artist of little apparent notability. Although citations can be found to verify that he traveled to Afghanistan with the Royal Grenadiers, no citations can be found to verify that any notable art came out of this venture. Claims of being a frequent cover artist for various magazines cannot be verified. Claims of awards won can be verified in one case (Primaluce International Trompe L'Oeil Festival), but not in others. Even if verified, the awards themselves seem to be of little note, as nothing can be found online about them. The "Green and Stone" prize appears to refer to a prize awarded by this local art store. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 *  keep  very new article. Other sources are out there- found this this v quickly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerboy1966 (talk • contribs)
 * That is merely a vendor of Alford's work. That hardly denotes notability.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep for now - No shortage of Google hits so there must be scope to firm the article up. It's not clear how many, if any, of the sources are truly independent though. --Northernhenge (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Rather than "keep with the hope that better sources can be found" as Northernhenge has suggested, I would suggest incubation instead. The problem with "keep with the intent to improve" is that the intention to improve is often never realized, and we are left with a poorly sourced article about a subject of questionable notability.  In incubation, the article can be worked or not depending on the whims of any editor chooses to take on the task, and the live encyclopedia is not degraded.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment incubation sounds fair. Changing keep "vote". Tbh I hadn't heard of this process before. Thanks for the lesson. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Agree with incubation. I didn't know that process was still in use. --Northernhenge (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2011 (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.