Deletion of Mark Beam

Comment: This is , , and  from a .  It is exactly how NOT to write a WP article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Spam (WP:SPAM||WP:AUTO||WP:COI||WP:SPA)

Comment: Qworty it's because we are serious adults here, or we're supposed to be, that I think we need to remain civil in these BLP nominations. This is no less a waste of time than any other AfD. He's a folk artist who once sculpted a cow, so what? The next time you're in NYC, I invite you to check out the American Folk Art Museum, next to MoMa, filled with similar works. Folk and outsider art ''can'' be notable. I vote delete because he fails , with no prejudice against recreating, should he gain more critical attention at some point
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ARTIST)

Comment: ndash; Article lacks sufficient ttribution|Attribution for erifiability|Verifiability of the RTIST notability criteria, or even  … pure weapons grade |vanispamcruftisement. Happy Editing! &mdash; '''{{#if:138.88.125.101|{{User|138.88.125.101}}|Special:Contributions/138.88.125.101|138.88.125.101
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A||WP:V||WP:ARTIST||WP:GNG||WP:vanispamcruftisement)

Comment: if references can be provided and verified. On his website he claims to be in the collections of Smithsonian Institution, K. C. Parishath Art Museum, Bangalore, India and LA County Museum of Art which may be enough to establish notability. Likewise, his bibliography lists New York Times, Germany Playboy and Better Homes & Gardens: the last two are not necessarily where most artists would want to find themselves, but they're legitimate publications and useful if verified and substantial (i.e. he's not just mentioned in passing). The big one: he has the words "2009 Emmy Award Winner" on his website which is confusing as it does not elaborate. Did he win an Emmy? If so, combined with all the rest, he passes notability. Yes, the article needs a big clean-up. And I need to remind everyone that writing an autobiographical article is not a reason for deletion. If a notable person writes their own article we rewrite it and send them a  warning. (And yes, I am quite aware of what's on my user page and I still stand by that but there are exceptions to that all-important rule that I made up
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: I don't think this person is notable enough as of yet due to an apparent lack of significant coverage. Beam is not once mentioned in either the Barnyard (film)|Barnyard or the Back at the Barnyard articles. Voting in favour of deletion due to the subject's questionable notability and on the basis that the article appears to be an |autobiography
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Autobiography (WP:AUTO)

Comment: The relevant criteria are  and .  IMDB http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1703746/ confirms he has an associate producer credit on the 2006 film Barnyard (film)|Barnyard and the subsequent Back at the Barnyard TV series.  This satisfies  criterion 3: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject ... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."  This http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=Barnyard+film+review&meta=&aq=f&oq= Google search reveals the usual crowd of "independent periodical articles or reviews" that you'd expect for a feature film like Barnyard.  As far as independent notability, http://metrotimes.com/screens/review.asp?rid=22667 this review includes a fairly extensive feature on Beam himself
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:ARTIST||WP:ARTIST)

Comment: insufficient references at this time, in the article, to |verify |notability.  If the claims which
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NN)