Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Osborne

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Osborne

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

Long-term unsourced BLP of questionable notability. The Wordsmith^Communicate 07:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This was tagged as unsourced in July 2008, the month of UBLPs that Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue is currently working on (COME HELP US!). This is a common article type we see--a local artist with very little coverage out there and no critical coverage, and article created by a single purpose account that never returned. I can't find sourcing to demonstrate notability.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If he's widely acknowledged and appreciated throughout the art would, you'd think we could find at least one article on the web saying something to that effect. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My dear friend Google says this person doesn't seem to be notable enough for inclusion. Netalarm^talk 22:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was able to find multiple places where his paintings were being sold, but not a single WP:RS that could be used to create a WP:BIO. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 08:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Neville-Smith -Drdisque (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the WP:CREATIVE test. I've deleted the unsourced BLP claims (date and place of birth, first wife, second wife). - Pointillist (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2010 (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.