The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Mower[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only real claim to notability is a single event (WP:1E) of designing a dress for Michelle Obama when he was 12. Their subsequent activities in music and poetry do not appear to meet the threshold of notability under WP:CREATIVE. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete designing a dress for use by the first lady is not in and of itself a sign of notability, so the age at which he did so is of no consequence, and does not show him notable. If we keep this article, to be consistent we would need to keep articles on everyone who has designed a dress for the first lady, and clearly for the Queen of England, and proably many other queens, preisdents, wives of presidents, and probably some people who have designed major ceremonial clothings worn by men, and I just shudder to think what a mess keeping this article would create.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete and salt In the first place, the Huff Post article is full of qualifiers that, while he may have designed a dress for the former first lady, it doesn't say he made a dress that she wore. So I'm not seeing that this meets a standard for prodigies that they have notable adult achievements. There seems to be another BLP issue in that I suspect that the article conflates two people with the same name, and at any rate being someone else's boyfriend isn't enough, and there's no claim at all to adult musical/poetic achievements. Even by the standards of prodigies we've deleted of late this is poor, and even though he may be of age now, I ask that this be salted unless and until real notability as an adult is achieved. Mangoe (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the question you pointed out; I meant to comment in the initial nom. The ref in the article for Star Local Media includes a quote from Mower saying "I designed a dress for her and began working with some awesome designers. I came very close to having her wear it." Based on that, it appears the designed dress was not worn by her. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.