Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gillie and Marc

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 keep. There seems to be significant reliable sources and coverage. It needs a minor clean up though, per WP:MOS. (non-admin closure) - TheMagnificentist 09:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gillie and Marc[edit]

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

Completing nomination per WP:AGF on behalf of an IP editor, whose rationale (from their edit summary) was "personal content. not content for encyclopedia.". On the merits, the article was created and exclusively edited by Gillieandmarcart (talk · contribs), which is either a username violation or an indication of autobiography. While there are some reliable-ish sources included in the article, the vast majority are from the subject's website - never a good sign. The prose itself is problematic, as with the lead where some of the subject's work is self-described as iconic. I make no recommendation as to notability, but if there is a suitable article about these individuals, I don't think this is it. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as badly flawed but still notable (media coverage, multiple books by major publishers, etc). We have a procedure for potential deletions described in WP:BEFORE. In other words, WP:SOFIXIT, Anonymous. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 17:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to have been significant work done since it was IP nominated for AfD, including appropriate referencing. There seems to be plenty of secondary sources available, including some I found immediately which are not industry related, and reliable, ie plenty of WP:NEXIST. Aoziwe (talk) 02:30, 19 July 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.