Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Owen Williams (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. Closing early because the only comments in favour of keeping have been made by sockpuppets. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 05:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Williams (artist)[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)

This came to my attention as an IP from the Yukon added him to the List of Canadian Artists. As I looked at the edit history, it became clear this is a likely autobio.

I then looked at notability and found that he is in the permanent collection of the Yukon Arts Centre. So far so good. However, the next sources found were about a dispute he had with the Yukon Arts Centre, leading to him being convicted twice for making threats against the centre.

The only real claim to notability here stems from the permanent collection and the subsequent threats and court case. This makes it look like quite a negative page. Since we are not here to bring down the reputation of individuals we write about, I propose deletion. --- Possibly (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Williams (calligrapher) (AfD discussion) was deleted in 2009. In part because of the nominator here, this is not a substantially identical article. Uncle G (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks UncleG. I noticed both ke*p votes in that AfD are from an SPA with two edits. --- Possibly (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 02:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion I can't find any independent substantial in-depth coverage of this artist that would justify having an article.Valueyou (talk) 06:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The notability claim strikes me as borderline. I don't think the non-arts coverage should be a factor. Curiocurio (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User Bembo Bold, who has been confirmed as a sockpuppet but is not yet blocked, has been editing the page extensively for the past week or so. --- Possibly (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- And... they're blocked.--- Possibly (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it still a BLP1E case when they carry a grudge for a decade? Drmies (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin there has been a lot of time-consuming sockpuppetry to the article and this AfD, by accounts and multiple IPs. Suggest salting the article title, as the particular sock that is pushing it is quite persistent. --- Possibly (talk) 02:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. I am sure the artist had made some art pieces, but it is not notable enough for inclusions. Lots of sock activity around here. SunDawn (talk) 04:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet relevant notability criteria (as others have stated above). Suggest merging any notable content to another article, like Yukon Arts Centre for example – there is some usable information in the references, but none of it makes the subject of the article notable. Sean Stephens (talk) 04:23, 14 May 2021 (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.