Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Uzochukwu

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. Euryalus (talk) 11:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Uzochukwu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I frankly would've PRODed, but for the chances it will be removed, here we are; none of this is actually convincing at all since it's all either trivial coverage or nothing at all convincing (there are no major coverage sources or collections); the listed sources also include either galleries and interviews. SwisterTwister talk 19:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The subject of this article seems to meet GNG fairly comfortably; see [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5]. There's quite a few more results available in a google news search. Vanamonde (talk) 12:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• To my own surprise it's even not WP:TOSOON. He has quite enough established notability. It's a Keep. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:ARTIST. Here's another source and another short article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Here are two more sources: [6], [7]. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Several of the articles sinply consist of galleries, one of the listed sources is actually repeated twice, and some of them are simply then interviews. There is still not the sufficiently substantial amount needed. Some of them are then sinply a few paragraphs, take the BBC for example. The 24hora.cl source is not even close to 6 paragraphs. The New Haven source is not actually focusing with him and only consists of a few paragraphs, while the Nigerian source then only consists of a few paragraphs and lists a taken interview. SwisterTwister talk 07:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – WP:GNG states, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Just enough in the coverage to merit keeping. --Michig (talk) 06:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Once again, the articles simply consist of photos and galleries, none of it actually amounts to substance and coverage. As an artist, he is not notable because there are no museum collections, exhibiting as an artist is never a claim alone for notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:12, 29 August 2016 (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.