Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M. A. Alford

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

M. A. Alford

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

Non-notable artist. He has some mentions, but not substantial coverage. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Akin to an article about minor characters in Star Wars. We can't demonstrate notability until he becomes known outside of his personal fandom. Shii (tock) 07:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I can understand why an editor might doubt the notability of this very young artist from Kansas City. However, his "Sex-Ed" condom art piece has solid sourcing in independent reliable sources, as cited in the article and in other non-local sources such as [1][2]. Even so, one might reasonably think WP:BLP1E applies, except that there's also coverage of some of his other work. The article asserts that he's been written about in a Taiwanese magazine and in the book 50 Contemporary Artists You Should Know; this content appears to be off-line and I can't confirm what it says, but we can verify the positive review his underwater series received in a regional arts journal called Review,[3] which appears to be a legitimate publication consistent with WP:RS.[4] Unless there's some reason not to take all this at face value, it appears to me that he passes WP:GNG, if narrowly. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Understanding that there are multiple independent sources over a spanse of time, I consider this a keep. There are book, internet, and CNN sources that add to the validity WP:RS. It may be a bit premature of a page but from the consistency of reviews it seems that there will be more information in the future. (User: Marc Poissons) 3:48, 25 March 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.247.95.97 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article definitely overstates his significance: "highly controvercial" indeed! --Salimfadhley (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find that even though he is not extremely notable, he has had substantial coverage, especially a book of caliber, CNN, and Taiwanese magazine. This makes it considered international coverage and I consider it to be worthy of entry. Needs to have better writing though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.89.131.139 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 20 March 2012

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.