Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Bombardier

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Bombardier[edit]

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

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I can't find anything to substantiate the notability of this person. There's some coverage in a local newspaper – he had a break-in at his design studio, he doesn't like the council's plans for a garage building, he helped to co-ordinate a local project to promote graffiti on the walls of his town. I accept that a street artist may be notable without meeting the usual expectations of WP:ARTIST (work in major museum collections, exhibitions in substantial publicly-owned galleries or spaces etc); but where is the substantial in-depth coverage in several reliable sources that would allow or enable us to write an article about this one? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the nom is correct: there just aren't any sources out there to establish any kind of notability. The only good source is about him being a crime victim, not an artist.104.163.147.121 (talk) 10:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a significantly redacted version of a much longer article that was a gigantic WP:COPYVIO, just for the record — but even the longer version didn't reliably source any particularly strong claim of notability under WP:CREATIVE either, but was highly advertorialized and referenced almost entirely to blogs and Facebook or Instagram posts. And no, one piece of local media coverage about a break-in at his studio is not, in and of itself, enough to claim that he passes GNG in lieu of failing creative, either: if you're going for "notable because media coverage exists", rather than "notable because he's accomplished something that objectively passes a subject-specific inclusion criterion", then it takes a lot more than just one or two pieces of media coverage to get there. Bearcat (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Failing WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE.Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found a short CBC video piece[1], but that still isn't enough. Theredproject (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG Missing substantive RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not substantiated by third party reliable sources; not notable, failed WP:GNG.-Richie Campbell (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG -- Dane ^talk 18:14, 26 March 2018 (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.