Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weird Paul Petroskey
Most of the coverage is local and if it was just local, I'd say delete. However he has received some coverage in other sources such as Vice and The Retroist that push it to a weak keep for me. On a side note, I cleaned the article up since it was more akin to a fan page than an encyclopedic entry. I removed the HuffPo article since it wasn't really a RS and the video wasn't such an accomplishment that we could really show that it was something that would keep the article. I also want to let people know that this isn't decided on a vote and that any "keep" arguments must, must, '''must''' follow guidelines and show notability per . You can see examples of what doesn't count as a valid argument at . Also as a side note, the documentary itself isn't necessarily a thing that would show notability, as it hasn't really gotten a lot of coverage in and of itself. It was a selection at some film festivals, but never seems to have gotten any notice aside from the Pittsburgh area papers, which is an issue. What it all boils down to in the end is coverage. There is the possibility of coverage that isn't on the Internet, so if anyone coming in has the ability to dig for offline sources, please do so
— User:Tokyogirl79, 04:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:BAND||WP:NOT (Wikipedia:Notability)