Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misspixels

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} 17:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misspixels[edit]

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

I declined to speedy delete this as notability is somewhat claimed in the article text, but a search has not produced any reliable sources which can verify this content or indicate the notability of this person. The honor from Wired magazine is just a reader-submitted photo contest that was judged by who got the most votes on the website, not a competition between professional artists. This individual did not even win the contest but was in the top 15, and the coverage of it [1] does not contain a single word of description of this person. The Museum of Modern Art website does not appear to have any information on MissPixels despite the claims in this article. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Some coverage exists in community [2] newspapers. The MOMA claim, if read carefully, will reveal that it was an image released through social networking which is a lot different than the work being part of an exhibit or part of the MOMA collection. Note that the first community paper link makes this clear that it was part of a web showcase. -- Whpq (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence the subject satisfies the general notability guideline. I nominated this article to be speedied because the claims of notability didn't seem plausible: they appear massaged in order to confer the appearance of notability where there isn't any. The article is also spam. -- Rrburke (talk) 19:57, 8 May 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.