Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shitty Watercolour

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. postdlf (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shitty Watercolour[edit]

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

I'm not sure if this meets WP:NOTE. Neo12345292 (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it asserts a mild but real degree of notability, and supports that assertion. Keep. DS (talk) 22:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article went through AfC and has been reviewed and approved by reviewer EagerToddler39. The article currently has 23 sources, all covering the subject of the article in detail, with about two-thirds focusing exclusively on the subject. The sources include Wired, Huffington Post, and CNN. Therefore, this article meets WP:NOTE. AlmostGrad (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I wouldn't go quite as far as AlmostGrad, but the sources do establish notability. Wired and Business Insider should see to that. Huon (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'll admit that I feel like most "internet famous" people shouldn't really have an article on Wikipedia, but this one does meet the notability requirements of WP:GNG. It's not the most notable subject of course and the citation overkill should probably be cleaned up, but notability appears to be demonstrated by the references in the article enough to justify keeping the article on Wikipedia. - Sudo Ghost 05:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good deal of discussion from multiple different reliable sources. — Cirt (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Revent (talk) 07:46, 16 July 2013 (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.