Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Patchen

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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Patchen

Seems to be little more than an advertisement for a non-notable artist. There are also numerous links on the page solely advertising Mr. Patchen's artwork. ~~It also appears that the article is being maintained by Mr. Patchen in violation of WP:CONFLICT.~~ A Google search for "David Patchen" shows only 3,420 results, many of which are unrelated to this particular individual. Hence, I believe that article does not meet the requirements for notability. Chasingsol (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator: I have spent the past couple of days second-guessing this AfD trying to find reliable third party sources per WP:V, WP:CREATIVE and the comments from editors below. I have still failed to do so. The only references provided do not appear to meet Wikipedia reliability standards, and the majority of those that have been provided, including those below, are offering the subjects artwork for sale. The article has been stagnant for almost a year, with no attempt to provide and cite reliable sources. --Chasingsol ^(talk) 14:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If Patchen himself has edited the article, there is only a COI if his edits are of a nature that conflict with the goals of Wikipedia (to produce a neutral sourced article). So I would leave that out of the argument entirely. I found a couple of articles that make a passing mention of him, but nothing extensive at all [1], [2]. I give this one a "delete" based on non-notability alone. LinguistAtLarge 14:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice and direction. Striked out. Chasingsol (talk) 14:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its' beautiful work and a pleasing article, but notability is not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Respectfully disagree here. Notability in the world of glass art should be clear by the presence in internationally-known gallery presence and participation in multiple shows in leading art markets. I would be happy to add additional external references to better establish notability but some references don't have urls such as teaching, demonstrations, lectures, especially in the Bay Area art scene (for example, my work was featured full size on the cover of the Arts section of the leading newspaper in Phoenix). I'm all for controlling the accuracy of the entry once it was brought to my attention--not for advertising. This should be clear from all my own contributions. I hope wikipedia agrees that the article is worth keeping. Davidpatchen (talk) 06:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)David Patchen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidpatchen (talk • contribs) 06:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: David, I have responded to your on your talk page. Best regards. --Chasingsol ^talk 09:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- Per WP:CREATIVE. Presence in prestigious art galleries, exhibitions and winner of different awards:1 and 2--Jmundo (talk) 06:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Jmundo: Those don't appear to be verifiable third-party sources. They are art galleries offering the work for sale (the shopping carts are dead giveaways!). I'm an admirer of his work, without question, I just haven't been able to find any third party sources to establish it's inclusion as a notable subject. Chasingsol ^(talk) 12:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the article requires a large amount of expansion to Wikify and its subject's notability needs clear explanation; if they cannot be achieved then delete. Reserve judgement and keep therefore. Jubilee♫clipman 13:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep & tag to cite sources. I guess the literature around contemporary American glass artists is limited. Given the specialist field, gallery appearances & awards suggests it probably meets WP:CREATIVE. Franciscrot (talk) 13:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, editor who put this up for deletion arguments seem to be an issue which can be remedied with simple editing, not with the drastic step of deletion. travb (talk) 17:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per comments by travb. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:CREATIVE as I see it, certainly a check or sources and the article do nothing to prove it passes that criteria for inclusion. --Narson ~ Talk • 13:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only found trivial mention in reliable sources about his work being exhibited. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2008 (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.