Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian Murphy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. - Philippe 23:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Julian Murphy

Julian Murphy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Vanity page for an "erotic artist". No secondary sources I can find other than blogs and such, and the Prod was removed by an IP who didn't provide any. Fails WP:BIO for creative professionals. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. I can't find any sources either, though we may want to be on the lookout for copyvios--the second sentence is lifted from here. (I don't know if that's enough for a speedy as copyvio, but I thought I should mention it.) Anturiaethwr (talk) 00:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. C'mon, do we really need an AfD for this? +Hexagon1 (t) 03:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 06:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Should qualify for speedy deletion due to copyvio.--Jackmantas (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Firstly I don't think that 14 words, including some which are attributed, amount to a copyright violation, but I've chaged the wording slightly anyway. I've added some references to the article, including one from CNN which says that the presence of his work gives respectability to a gallery, and one that shows that his work has been part of a four-man exhibition alongside Andy Warhol's, Keith Haring's and David Hockney's. I know notability is not inherited, but I can't imagine anyone who is not regarded as notable by his peers would be invited to make up the numbers in that sort of illustrious company. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
As the reference makes perfectly clear, this was a pre-auction display for charity, including works (no doubt prints, to judge by the quoted prices) by the other artists mentioned, and doubtless dozens of others. Warhol & Haring had both been dead for over a decade at the time. It doesn't really show much as regards notability. Johnbod (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2008 (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.