Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graffiti Kings

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 The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Graffiti Kings

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

Nothing that separates this page as needed from the Darren Cullen page, which uses most of this material--making this article repetitious. At best the material should be merged into the Cullen article and this should become a redirect, unless enough sources can be found that show the company is independently notable from Cullen. Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It does seem that more sources have been added since I nominated, this may have altered the eligibility status of the article. Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The company employs 18 artists - Cullen is the face of the company, just like being the lead singer in a band. this page should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlFreshCo (talk • contribs) 10:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 03:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article looks well written enough at it is. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 04:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 04:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's tough for non-mainstream things to get coverage and the nominating editor has, in fact, honestly acknowledged there are now more than he had access to when conducting initial searches. I would venture to suggest both the company and its founder are notable. Stalwart111 07:45, 4 March 2014 (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.