This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
The subject is widely reported in blogs and you tube. It is not listed as a hoax or urban legend any where. So the references are not normally acceptable. However, there are enough of them. If it is true, the WP should include it. With a million signature petition against the artist, if it is not true then it is certain a notable phenomenon. Your honoured opinions please.
Thanks, Triwbe (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Peer review is not really for notability debates - if the Guardian writes about him, he seems notable to me. Here are some suggestions for improvement:
- Make sure the lead summarizes the article per WP:LEAD
- References need to be complete, consider using {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} and include url, title, publisher, author if known and date accessed for internet sources.
- try to expand the article
- Any chance of an image?
Hope this helps, the article is very short so not much else to comment on Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)