Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krishna Reddy (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 speedy keep. AFD withdrawn by submitter. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Reddy (artist)[edit]

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

Not Notable artist and lack of references. SeytX (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Did the nominator try doing a WP:BEFORE on this article? That's rhetorical because if they had, they would have found this profile article on the Metropolitan Museum of Art's (the MET, NY) site, this article from The Hindu, his book published by SUNY press, this Blog post in The Times of India, this review in The Indian Express or this catalogue for his retrospective at the Bronx Museum of the Arts. It is pretty clear that notability is established here, as he is repeatedly mentioned in these sources as an important artist who has earned a spot in the history of Indian printmaking.104.163.148.25 (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the additional reliable sources identified above show that the artist has received significant coverage in reliable sources and passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 10:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient evidence exists to establish notability. Lepricavark (talk) 15:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Good job by the voter above to find the very obvious evidence of notability. For the nominator of this AfD and some other people who claim that articles should be deleted, I think we really need to emphasize WP:NEXIST. If an article currently has no sources, that is NOT a reason to delete it. Instead, encourage the community to search for sources, because their absence in an article is NOT proof that they do not exist at all. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:23, 16 February 2018 (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.