Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Scott Pierce

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. Does not provide any RS in the article. Unreferenced BLP. Nakon 01:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Scott Pierce (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)

Fails GNG no coverage in RS. Article claims several 'profiles' in natiional media but I have been unable to locate any coverage. So also WP:NRV. Does not meet WP:ARTIST. JBH (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. JBH (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: A quick Google search returns a lot of coverage. -- Taku (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @TakuyaMurata: Yes there is a lot of Google stuff but it is all things like "Famous people with autism" and "prodigy painter" on blogs. I can find no coverage in WP:RS. He has no real notability as an artist, no awards, not talked about by critics, no major exhibitions in major galleries etc. If you can find some coverage I missed please link it on his talk page or ping me on mine. Thanks for helping out. JBH (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete He does get quite a few hits on Google,[1] but they are not Independent Reliable Sources - they are things like his former teacher's website. I was unable to confirm any of the Reliable Source profiles claimed in the article. I found some local coverage about him [2] [3] but not enough to amount to an article. Maybe it's just a little WP:TOOSOON for him. --MelanieN (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Some links: Scholastic Magazine, Art Business News;Feb2004, Vol. 31 Issue 2, p22. He's featured in a reader [4] but it's hard to count that as about him. LaMona (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2015 (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.