Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Seton

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Seton[edit]

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

Fails WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. If you ignore the artists own website, bios, press release in the broadsheet source, there's no depth of coverage to support notability Flat Out (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage of Seton in the Sydney Morning Herald and Art Monthly Australia. His gallery is doing its artists no favours by creating conflict of interest articles though. -- haminoon (talk) 06:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. A strange article indeed. First, it tells us that Through this juxtaposition of hard and soft; permanent and impermanent, the artist also investigates the history of marble as a monumental medium. I wondered how juxtaposing any contrast in one's own sculpture could be a way of investigating the history of anything. So I clicked on the ostensible source, and there read: Seton decided to explore traditional stone carving as an avenue for expression. “... [Marble] has this monumental history; it goes back to empire, kings and queens...." No investigation here. Secondly, the biographee's website is a major source. -- Hoary (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now unless it can actually be better improved. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find substantial coverage from independent sources to show they currently meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:27, 23 October 2015 (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.