Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Ridpath (Canadian artist)

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. — Scientizzle 14:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Ridpath (Canadian artist)

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

Proposed deletion because "Fails WP:BIO. No reliable independent sources for this Ian Ridpath (many for the astronomer). The books are self-published, the paintings have not received significant attention." Contested, with addition of a number of articles he wrote for the amateur radio publication Break-In. However, writing for a magazine (or newspaper and so on) isn't an indication of notability. Being discussed, having received significant attention in independent reliable sources is. A search for such sources is hampered by his namesake, the asxtronomer (who wrote the initial article, apparently), but in the end don't result in sufficient returns to meet WP:BIO. Fram (talk) 09:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the original entry was added by me (the astronomer). I added it because I found that my own entry was receiving an increased umber of hits and I presumed that a proportion of these were for the Other Ian Ridpath, given his recent emergence on the art scene. Can we leave the entry for a few weeks and see what sort of traffic it attracts? I should add that although we know each other, because of the coincidence of name, we are not related. Ian R (the astronomer).

That's very modest of you, but I'd guess that whatever traffic is going to the article about you is probably looking for you. This is Wikipedia: after pop culture, science pretty much rules here. Art is way down the list in priorities, let alone an article on an artist with a small, localized profile. freshacconci talktalk 01:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article reads like an advertisement, does not seem encyclopedic...Modernist (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Nothing yet to support prominence or notability. JNW (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he gets more page views than this guy [1] 79.65.102.52 (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's a helpful comment. freshacconci talktalk 01:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability per WP:BIO or WP:ARTIST. freshacconci talktalk 01:00, 13 May 2010 (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.