Deletion of Chris Walrus Dalzell

Comment: or possibly '''draftify''' as suggested above. I think the three Canberra Times articles are just enough to meet 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: he has been covered at least twice in different newspapers: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/walrus-calls-it-a-wrap-on-street-art-20120717-228n6.html, http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/art-and-design/art-not-apart-20140218-32xsy.html, so I think he just about squeaks into the "multiple independent sources" criterion for . I could be persuaded the other way though. The fact that the page may have been written by the subject, or a friend of his, doesn't necessarily prove he isn't notable I guess. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Mduvekot is correct that the ''Canberra CityNews'' article, which only mentions Dalzell in a photo caption, is a terrible source. ''The Canberra Times'' article, however, is solid. The 280-word portion of the article in ''The Age'' is not as deep, but to it could be added a similar depth article from ''The Sydney Morning Herald''.http://www.smh.com.au/act-news/canberra-life/commit-no-nuisance-meets-groovin-the-moo-20150407-1mg9li Neither is a trivial mention, and  tells us that where "the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." I feel that together these three meet , albeit not by a wide margin
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC)