Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark McGowan (performance artist)

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. (non-admin closure) - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark McGowan (performance artist)[edit]

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

Non-notable artist. He has some media coverage, but not every artist who gets coverage is notable. His work doesn't seem to have attracted much attention or been very influential. Article relies too heavily on primary sources. Fails WP:ARTIST and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Lexiconoflife (talk) 06:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Maybe this artist is a little bit niche but he is quite active and has produced work in relation to the recent US presidential elections and has work in progress regarding the UK's Brexit process that is not included in the article. The article is somewhat stale and definitely needs attention and bringing up to date, but there is potential for this artist's work to become much more widely known and a deletion at this stage might be rather premature. Poltair (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, he clearly meets WP:GNG with several of his stunts/artworks being covered in the major press. There are over 20 news articles already cited from the quality press, and several from the Daily Mail too. Though evidently, as the clean-up templates suggest, the Wikipedia article is over-reliant in parts to McGowan's YouTube site. Sionk (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree he is somewhat niche, he like Poltair said he compensates by being very productive and produces material about contemporary affairs. For example, produced work in relation to the recent US presidential elections that was popular. And I his work in progress regarding the UK's Brexit process should also be good. This article should be improved and not deleted. And the press he has obtained because of all of this definitely makes him notable. Dean Esmay (talk)

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.