Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Butcher

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. Davewild (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Butcher[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD: the primary author of the article is the subject of the article. The sources listed don't go to establish notability per WP:CREATIVE, but rather hint that he may be notable only as WP:BLP1E (namely, that he won a prize for 'bad paintings'). —Tom Morris (talk) 09:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. His got a fair amount of references, especially for being the Australia worst artist. Ray-Rays 07:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete. I usually lean on the side of inclusionism, but this? You've got to be kidding me. Of the half-dozen references on the page, only one is reliable and secondary (The Herald Sun, predictably enough), and even then, clearly written with tongue firmly in cheek. Most of the others don't even get past "trivial coverage". That's a fail of WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in multiple secondary sources. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Yeti Hunter. That analysis of the sources is dead-on; I'm not finding the coverage we would need to keep this one. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Yeti Hunter. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.