Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Insect


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Paul Insect

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I can't see significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject for this artist. Hirst and Banksy have verifiably shown interest in his artwork, but this in itself does not confer notability. The article has references; however, I admit I am a Street art and Stuckist fan. Please prove me wrong here. --Shirt58 (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ref 1 is a passing mention in The Daily Telegraph;
 * Ref 2 is an en.wikipdia article;
 * Ref 3 is a passing mention in The New Statesman
 * Ref 4 is a self-published primary source;
 * Ref 5 is an en.wikipdia article;
 * Ref 6 is a Facebook profile;
 * Ref 7 is a self-published primary source;
 * Ref 8 is a passing mention in The Guardian;
 * Ref 9 is a directory listing;
 * Ref 10 is a mention in another artist's personal website;
 * Ref 11 is a mention in another artist's personal website.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Another source for consideration. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep The New Statesman and Telegraph articles have more than a passing mention, and the SF Chronicle one given by Phil is entirely about him.    DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I didn't give an opinion above about the disposition of this article because I took the nominator's analysis at face value. I now see that the Daily Telegraph source is far from a passing mention, so along with the San Francisco Chronicle source that I linked above we have enough for notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2010 (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.