Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Price

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Acous mana 16:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Price

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

fails WP:NOTABILITY per WP:ARTIST, seems WP:SOAP-like Acous mana 20:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Acous mana 20:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Acous mana 20:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Acous mana 20:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:34, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an artist doesn't get a survey exhibition (that's something like a retrospective, but for a living, working artist, whose oeuvre is still growing, but more comprehensive than than a solo exhibition ) in the Stedelijk Museum if they're not notable. Also, there are plenty of sources, so the GNG is met. Why this article would be WP:SOAP isn't clear to me. It doesn't read particularly promotional. FWIW, I maintain a list of weasel words that I (using a script) check articles against, and the only match I found was "prominent", but that wasn't used to describe Price. Vexations (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep this is ridiculous. Six works in the collection of MoMA. [1] Two at the Whitney. [2] We shouldn't be wasting our time with this. @Acousmana: I respectfully suggest you actually read NARTIST before you cite it. Theredproject (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject's solo shows at the ICA and the Stedilijk plus inclusion of works in the Venice Biennale and dOCUMENTA are sufficient for WP:NARTIST criterion 4. Any particular concerns about tone in the article are a matter for normal editing. AllyD (talk) 08:16, 6 November 2021 (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.