Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Alan Scudder (2nd nomination)

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. RL0919 (talk) 23:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Alan Scudder[edit]

[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)

Previously deleted nine months ago in December 2018; the sourcing in this similar version has the same problem as the deleted version: it does not provide enough independent sources to establish notability. Some of the sourcing looks good at first glance, but when you investigate it is not. for example the first link to the book on Remixing and Drawing is just three sentences saying that the author met Scudder. The Schloss-post article is an interview conducted as part of a residency, and published by the residency. Most other references are primary sources like this event announcement. Overall what is needed is independent in-depth commentary that establishes notability. Such RS commentary is not in the article, and I can't find any in a search. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this was deleted less than a year ago, and the current sources are unreliable. There's no real claim of notability. Bearian (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete I didn't think he was notable last time and I see nothing that shows he's notable as an artist or has the coverage to meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This artist is notable in the art + tech software world. Some above have said vaguely that there isn't a claim for notability, but there are at least 3 cites that focus primarily on his work, published in reputable spaces in the area of Art + Tech such as the Profile in Rhizome.org link. Also, the editor who originally nominated the article for deletion has said the articles associated with residencies don't count towards establishing notability. That seems like more of a personal opinion, as it's not in WP policy as far as I understand. Whether it's an interview or associated with a residency, if it's an article in a reputable source, it should function as a source, and helps establish notability by showing the institutional attention on the artist. These sources were added to improve this new version of the article after it had previously been deleted. Hexatekin (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, articles associated with residencies don't count towards establishing notability because they are not independent of the subject. Residencies are compensated gigs in one direction or another. You go to the residency and they either pay you to go, or you pay to go. When the hosting organization of the residency writes about your or arranges for someone to write about you in the context of the residency, it is not independent reporting as would be the case in an independent journalist coming along and writing about you without being connected. Notability is all about independent sourcing. The residency sources are fine for establishing that it happened, but they do not confer notability as they are not independent sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No improvement since last time. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete,no sign of notability, does not meet WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:10, 20 September 2019 (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.