Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. Knight

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G. Knight[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a graffiti artist, with no properly sourced indication of notability per WP:NARTIST. The referencing here is entirely to primary sources, except for a single news article where the citation links to a reprint on the subject's own website rather than to the originating publication -- thus making it impossible for us to properly verify whether said publication is a real reliable media outlet or a non-notable blog. And even if it is a real reliable media outlet, it still takes more than just one legitimate reliable source to get a person over WP:GNG. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can properly reference him over GNG, but an artist is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because blogs and art auction sales databases nominally verify that he exists. Bearcat (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as you can tell by my username I live in the city in question, which is indeed awash in graffiti. I've never heard of the article subject and more importantly, Google news reveals no articles about him. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no critical attention for the subject's work. As far as I can tell, nobody has written about his work. One of the sources even helpfully points out that: "His Instagram page is the only online site where a significant quantity of his street work can be viewed". Mduvekot (talk) 02:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mduvekot. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Independent sources unavailable to establish notability.104.163.140.193 (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total lack of coverage in reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with nom/Bearcat.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:30, 13 March 2017 (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.