Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Kongthin Pearlmich - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bongomatic (talk | contribs) at 00:30, 17 January 2010 (→Kongthin Pearlmich: fix punct). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:30, 17 January 2010 by Bongomatic (talk | contribs) (→Kongthin Pearlmich: fix punct)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Kongthin Pearlmich

Kongthin Pearlmich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article has not been verifiably demonstrated to exist, nor to create or sell any artworks—ever. The only sources relate to a late-2008 episode where—through a representative at a non-existent law firm—the subject is claimed to have offered a painting—that by his own estimation was hugely valuable—to a cathedral. Fails BLP1E and V. matic 00:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Seems to notable for one event, which means WP:BLP1E applies, so delete ~DC Talk To Me 10:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. No source has been provided by the nominee to substantiate the allegation that it is a 'hoax'. The article references a Telegraph article amongst others, generally a good source. The fact is that publicity shy artists exist, but that doesn't mean they are non-noteworthy. The fact that he was first reported about in connection with one big event, is neither here nor there. The article mentions his body of work. A look at his (admittedly eccentric) website shows a large body of work (presumably owned by private collectors - something which again doesn't mean he is not notable). Malick78 (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh, and WP:BLP1E specifically says: "if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them". There is no reason to think he is likely to remain low-profile. He has, as I said, a large body of work and sells for high prices. Malick78 (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Categories: