Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kendell Geers

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) 16:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kendell Geers[edit]

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

self-promo nn vanispamicruftisement, no independent sources, over half the edits are COI additions by multiple SPAs Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I dunno, he might be notable - there's some evidence of coverage. But there are also issues with the article, including the fact that its largest section was based on two press releases. I've trimmed that bit out entirely, but am not convinced this is a keeper, yet. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if some of the claims can be verified. This article, frankly, needs a complete rewrite. It's not encylopedic in tone and simple editing may not suffice. Some of the claims are dubious: that he urinated in Duchamp's Fountain causing "international outrage" is probably a stretch. Many people have done that (Brian Eno for example) so I doubt Geers caused much of a stir for that. If his involvement in the various biennials and museum exhibitions listed in the first section can be independently verified, that would establish notability. But as it stands, this article is terribly written. Not that it counts for anything, but I have heard of Geers. He's an artist with an international profile, so I'd say this would be a keep, but not this article in its current state. freshacconci talktalk 16:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is a bit too much like a resume/CV, but he has enough coverage to be notable. German press[1][2], subject of book by major French publisher[3], coverage in second edition of Sue Williamson's Resistance Art in South Africa[4], Artforum[5], shown in major public art galleries (Baltic in UK, Haus der Kunst in Germany), series of 10 images in British Daily Telegraph[6]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit of work to tidy up, putting it in chronological order and partly rewriting the lead, though it needs more work. Artforum to a degree supports the claims about Duchamp, though outrage is a subjective thing, and I rewrote. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2013 (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.