Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D. Keith Furon

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. No prejudice to recreation if sound references are found. Tyrenius (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D. Keith Furon

An "American fine art photographer" (my emphasis), which for the uninitiated means that he takes care over his prints and offers them for sale at rather high prices. All well and good, but the article, written in a somewhat promotional style (and also idiosyncratically, with what are normally dependent clauses serving as full sentences) offers as sources for the claims only this or that page of dkeithfuron.com. True, there are three other "references". One of them, this, says that "Keith has authored and published six books among which the latest one has been nominated for the prestigious Pulitzer Award". If so, perhaps he did so under a different name: amazon.com lists plenty of books by Raymond Furon but none by Keith; and the Library of Congress catalogue also lists nothing. Of the other two references, one is to a retailer of Furon's works and the other doesn't even mention him. Furon's own site says a little about him but doesn't claim that he has either had a single solo exhibition or put out a single book (he's merely contributed to a single book); there's also no link there to critical discussion. Googling reveals the usual humdrum stuff (myspace, etc.), but (at least until my patience ran out) nothing substantial. Claims for notability aren't verifiable. -- Hoary (talk) 05:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- Hoary (talk) 05:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanispam. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 05:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no attribution of notability to independent and credible sources. Nothing in Google News or Google Books. --Dhartung | Talk 20:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources for anything. Notability extremely doubtful. LeSnail (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep works in major museums, which meets the notability criterion for an artist. "Museum of Modern Art and the Boulder Museum of Contemporary Art, " We do need some good documentation for just which works are in MOMA. DGG (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I'd like to know how many of his works are in these museums: a token one or two, or a set? And however many, I'd also like to see the claims backed up by a credible authority. For as the article is now, one or other of two SPAs has merely asserted that his works are in the museums. -- Hoary (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. We'd need a citation to judge whether being in MoMA meets notability requirements. No hits on MoMA.org though.[1][2] Google didn't turn up anything either. Notability doesn't seem to be demonstrable here. -- Lea (talk) 05:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Leaw Johnbod (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article on a non notable somebody or other; in spite of this sentence: He is constantly inspired to push the envelope of nudity, eroticism and the human form - that's some envelope. Pinkville (talk) 04:17, 14 February 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.