Deletion of Tomos Roberts

Comment: I have given this AfD quite a bit of thought. I agree with Berchanhimez' thorough assessment of the sources. The article fails  on all four criteria. The original article was the most promotional arts-related article I have ever seen. There is an indication that this is a coordinated effort between the article creator and the poet's manager/PR agent therefore I believe, whether or not UPE took place, the intention of the piece was pure  puff. The essay on  and in particular the section on ADVERTISING section #5 are relevant. I also agree the poet does not meet GNG per Berchanhimez. From my own observations when trimming some of the promotional content, I saw that all of this artist's works are from the past year, and based on that, it is way . Perhaps in a few years
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CREATIVE||WP:PROMO||WP:NOT||WP:NOTADVERTISING||WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: might be a case of , but currently does not meet either  or 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON||WP:NAUTHOR||WP:GNG)

Comment: the Washington Post article contributes to notability, and the NZ herald is likely also contributory, but I haven't seen anything else that remotely comes close to contributing to independent coverage. Furthermore, at this point, even if more coverage of this one "viral" event was found, this is exactly the reason that  exists. It's a weak not-vote from me because it may be that this person is notable, but the user posting wall of text here has done absolutely nothing to help that case, and has been hurting it by presenting literally dozens of unreliable sources/invalid arguments in this discussion. The user fighting for this article does not appear to have read any of the help they have been provided - and I also suspect based on their history that they have a heavy COI with this article - regardless of if they claim they do not. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Perhaps the poem/book and/or the author will become notable as time goes by, but I do not believe that point has been reached. The ''Washington Post'' article is the best, but it is a lead-in to an interview. The ''Kirkus'' coverage is a small point in favor of the notability of the children's book, but is not convincing because that publication exists to mass review books, about 10,000 per year. The essay  describes my thinking about this topic
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)