Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Simmonds

: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. Davewild (talk) 20:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

=[[Harry Simmonds]]=

:{{la|Harry Simmonds}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harry_Simmonds Stats])

:({{Find sources|Harry Simmonds}})

Original author tagged it G7, which I declined since other editors have contributed - but I don't really see much in the way of notability here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be an autobiography of an emerging artist. Stong candidate for deletion, as does not meet WP:BIO. Harry Simmonds is actually a painter and decorator, and appears to be using Wikipedia to promote his hobby of painting. Reference 2 does not exist. The remaining reference is the individual's own website, which confirms that 3 years have passed since his work was last exhibited. Emerging / up-and-coming is not the same as notable, and in this case the individual has clearly failed to emerge - unless there is other referenceable material to prove otherwise? My aunty gladys paints watercolours once in a while - why not give her a wikipedia article? If the subject wishes to write about himself, he should stick to facebook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgenup (talk • contribs) 14:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete. I just added two local news stories as sources to the article. That said, they're not enough to convince me of notability and I couldn't find any more. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

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

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

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

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 03:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

: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.