Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Halpin

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. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Halpin

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

Notable for one event only. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The event wasn't really an event, it was a career, alebit a silly and childish one. There are sources before the trial. The trial coverage only existed because of this criminal's notoriety. Esquivalience ^t 17:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject of the article fails WP:NARTIST and nothing seemed to be notable outside the minor criminal case. WP:BIO1E may applies here unless there are enough evidence of notability outside the criminal case. Keep per smartse. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the nomination's claim that he is only notable for one event is incorrect as evidenced by substantial coverage from the BBC in 2009 (already included). londonist.com also covered him several times [1] [2] including in 2006 calling him "the capital’s most infamous tagger" and in passing The Guardian in 2007 said he was described as "the tube's most prolific tagger". Admittedly with only these sources notability is a bit shaky still, but with his arrest in 2011 receiving such widespread coverage WP:ANYBIO is met. It's tricky to argue over NARTIST when his work was classified as vandalism, but it's also worth nothing that Banksy (the most famous artist of the graffiti movement) produced a piece including his tag. At the time of his conviction The Guardian also noted that he was branded "king of taggers" by a graffiti magazine and there may be other offline sources available. SmartSE (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think the WP:BIO1E rationale used by the nominator is sustainable at this point. I believe SmartSE made some good points, such as citing the BBC article which was written two years before the event. I found this documentary which is entirely about the subject, uploaded in 2008 to YouTube and which supposedly aired in 2004 (but it certainly aired at some point before the arrest). Together with all the coverage related to his arrest, I think sufficient notability has been established to keep the article. Dontreader (talk) 06:01, 27 July 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.