Deletion of Civilian (street artist)

Comment: per Selket. I agree with Tyrenius - each article needs to be sourced in accordance with . You-tube etc don't cut it but The Age does
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: per Greatwalk. I think the notability of each artist needs to be assessed on its own merits – I do not support either blanket inclusion or blanket deletion. I also don't agree that "notability is POV". Wikipedia has clear standards about |notability, namely multiple non-trivial mentions in published sources. Some graffiti artists rise to that level of notability, but many don't.I do like the idea of an article like Street art in Melbourne, or some variation on that (using "street art" in the title would make it more inclusive than "graffiti"). Such an article could probably be quite easily assembled from multiple non-trivial sources, even if individual artists may not rise to that level of notability. If that kind of article is a good idea, in the future, I'd certainly like to contribute a Street art in San Francisco article (for which I can find many published sources for
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABLE)

Comment: The original author has asserted twice in this AfD that notability is POV. While in life, I tend to agree, there are some guidelines in place to prevent editor POV from prevailing. See #Notability is not subjective. Of course, there's the basic def of notability: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other." So notability is POV, but the POV of people writing for sources outside of Wikipedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)