Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Beames
I'm grateful for FormalDude's analysis of the sources. I agree that some of the sourced articles are strangely written, but I can't find anything in any of them that would suggest they are sponsored, advertised or self-submitted that would eliminate them. Some of them are industry publications (or are in sections of the publication about art/design/etc.) so it's perhaps not surprising that they would talk about Beames' products. In terms of significance, the Standard article leans on the trivial side (and is local coverage) but the rest are more comprehensive descriptions about Beames' work and life (and aren't local publications). I agree they're not New York Times quality coverage, but they are nonetheless independent, reliable and third-party. That's enough to meet . I think we have to lean on the side of keeping here if the sources are examined closely enough. I agree this is a borderline case but there's not enough to convince me that  is not met
— User:Deus, 11:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:V||WP:BIO (Wikipedia:Verifiability)