Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Spark (2nd nomination)
If "''the subject of the article is already a self-admitted sock-puppetteer''", I do not see anything indicating that this article was written by a banned or blocked editor, even if about one so purported. And no matter its topic, the point here here is that even if the topic is |disliked by some for various reasons, it appears to have received |enough coverage to be worthy of note.https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Black+Spark%22&tbm=nws&tbs=ar:1#hl=en&tbo=d&tbs=ar:1&tbm=nws&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22Black+Spark%22+director+-wikipedia&oq=%22Black+Spark%22+director+-wikipedia&gs_l=serp.3...13541.16487.2.16804.11.11.0.0.0.0.133.1300.0j11.11.0...0.0...1c.1.Pto8UqSz-z4&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=99a1ab5eeb75a78a&bpcl=39650382&biw=1024&bih=653 Sources listed in article are not so much blogs, as they are reports in genre sources about reactions to this performing artist and his works and identity.  is met
— User:MichaelQSchmidt, 19:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:GNG||WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)