Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Gene Morrison

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 keep. Consensus is that the references are sufficient, and I agree: the guideline is significant critical attention, and that is normally proven by reviews, which are present. The argument that there are thousands of others equally notable is opposed to the policy of NOT PAPER. . DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Gene Morrison

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

Contested PROD : No evidence that he meets the requirements in WP:ARTIST such as "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers". Only claim to fame seems to be as one of the founders of a studio which does not in itself seem to be notable Codf1977 (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (BTW the studio only lasted 5 years and then closed). andy (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reece Jones (artist) andy (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found a coverage in Guardian, BBC, ArtRabbit, Viatico. See also the section Selected Publications at this website. In my opinion, the subject has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews and meets WP:ARTIST #3. He is not Picasso or Monet, of course, but the information is verifiable and the article could be useful for our readers. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The full quote from WP:ARTIST #3 is: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." These references don't show that. For example the Viatico reference has only one paragraph on him. The context is set by #1 which is that the artist should be "regarded as an important figure" or "widely cited". Having been the subject of a few reviews simply doesn't meet the standards of WP:ARTIST. There are many thousands of good, modestly successful artists exhibiting here and there - the guidelines are clearly intended to distinguish them from artists who are "important", "major" or "significant". andy (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, our opinions may differ. No problem. This is a borderline case. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, Rockwell was a gallery space showing many significant London artists, you are incorrect in referring to it as a studio. (Rudolph Scholl (talk) 11:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep per [1] and John Moores exhibition [2].--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References in the article and as given above are sufficient coverage to meet WP:N. Ty 14:02, 3 May 2010 (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.