Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Vandever

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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Vandever

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

Purely WP:PROMO and not notable. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the sources count as truly reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I trimmed the article of the Blogspot and Eventbrite 'references', and it is now clear that htis is non-notable artist based on the refs. The promotional writng and the hyped style don't help.96.127.242.251 (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not very much to go on here. Certainly an artist, and certainly has gained some attention for his work. However, there's insufficient evidence of anything that would support passing WP:NARTIST. I poked around in news sources, and came up with a blog and some passing references, 4 in total [1]. Certainly nothing to support a pass under WP:GNG either. Creator of the article @ArtOfKannon: appears to be a single purpose account which began creating a sandbox version of this article 2 minutes after they created their account. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:56, 27 October 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.