Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul McGowan (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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 08:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul McGowan (artist)[edit]

I don't think the subject is notable enough and the lack of information on the page seems to verify my beliefs. Furthermore, the article was created by the subject, which is questionable for PoV and notability discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Greggers ^{(t • c)} 20:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable person who has created a vanity article of themselves. Scapler (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Paul who? Seems to be a clear COI to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.85.236 (talk) 22:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He won a major award so he passes WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is short because it lists only the specific things that make the artist notable. 4 third party references seem more than adequate to satisfy WP:BIO; conflict of interest is not a grounds to delete an article. JulesH (talk) 09:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have expanded the article to include more information about the artist, hopefully this will convince people he is notable. Note that all of this information was already available in the articles used as references for the original article. JulesH (talk)
Keep based on improvements to the article. Bearian (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-encyclopedic..nn..sorry...Modernist (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The student prize falls below WP:CREATIVE, but the multiple references satisfy WP:BIO. --Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple non-trivial coverage in UK national media stories satisfies WP:N & WP:V. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:32, 17 January 2009 (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.