Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theo Watson

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Watson

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

Little if any proof of notability of this video artist/programmer, apart from the paragraph in Blouin Art. Looking at his CV he doesn't make any claims of importance or success either. I can't see anything of note online - this guy is a young artist working in the interent age. fails WP:GNG/WP:ARTIST. Sionk (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd like to see if I can dig up something. His work has been shown in the MoMA and Tate if I'm not mistaken. Also, Being the co-creator of OpenFrameworks makes one notable in some circles. Michiel Duvekot (talk)|(contribs) 04:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some material about his works in both MoMA and the Tate. WP:ARTIST #4 is aimed more at artists who create permanent artworks rather than the sort of ephemeral installation work that Watson does, but I think he's attracted sufficiently high-level attention to meet the spirit of that guideline. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the high-level attention? If you know of any, maybe you could add it? Sionk (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the meaning of my words was not as clear as I thought. I meant that having shows in MoMA and the Tate is high level attention. And I already added them to the article before writing here. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to see another independent source before saying keep DIZwikwiki (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems ok now and per above...Modernist (talk) 11:30, 30 January 2014 (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.