Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life of a Craphead

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. Mkdw ^talk 08:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Life of a Craphead[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals. Haven't been reviewed by any significant critic, haven't originated a significant new concept, haven't been widely cited by peers. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having been chosen as artists in residence for the Art Gallery of Ontario is a very significant achievement. This is the main provincial art gallery for a province with 13 million people. They were profiled (550 words) in the Globe and Mail, Canada's second largest newspaper by circulation, with coast to coast distribution. A 1300 word article about them appeared in Canadian Art, an art magazine which has been published for 25 years and has a current circulation of 19,000. *They were profiled in This, an award winning magazine with a 45 year history. WP:ARTIST applies only if the topic fails general notability. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added one source, but the Globe & Mail/Canadian Art refs appear to meet GNG by themselves, and WP:ARTIST (3) last clause. --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Allow time for sourcing to be added. TheOneSean ^{[ U | T | C ]} 22:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (state the obvious) @ 22:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (lecture) @ 22:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs cleaning up, proper formatting and hopefully expanding but the sources provided plus being exhibited at the AGO and the Power Plant more than satisfy WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. freshacconci talktalk 23:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Anne's coverage above. The Interior (Talk) 00:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: references support notability. PamD 06:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Anne Delong, notability is clearly established, this article has potential to be developed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sourcing in the article is sufficient to establish notability. I'd also say that being named artists in residence at the AGO would qualify under #1 for WP:ARTIST. I've cleaned up the references so that they are all inline now. -- Whpq (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Time should be allowed for extensions to be made for this article, I do believe this meets WP:N. AppleJack7_{Dear Princess Celestia...} 02:26, 1 June 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.