Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Shambroom

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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Rusf10 (talk) 06:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Shambroom

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

Does not meet WP:ARTIST, the only source in the article is his own book. Does not meet any of the four parts of WP:ARTIST. Rusf10 (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In MoMA collection, au Mois de la Photo à Montréal, in Walker Art Center collection, long article about his work at MinnPost, long write-up for an exhibition at MoCP. Well, finding these took me all of two minutes or so with the world's best known (and, recently, most-feared) search engine. I could then have continued, but perhaps it's instead Rusf10's turn to do a little searching. If the claim were that the article was feeble, I'd agree; but it seems instead to be that the biographee doesn't amount to much, which puzzles me. -- Hoary (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and also WP:BEFORE!! Theredproject (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry that Rusf10 hasn't taken up my invitation. Meanwhile, in SFMoMA collection, show at the Tang museum, eight-minute video on PBS, in Madison MoCA collection, written up at ArtForum, in the Getty collection ... oh and finally (for now) a short and uninteresting paragraph that's both bilingual and ALL IN CAPITALS and therefore must be important, amirite? ¶ Sorry, I have trouble taking this AfD seriously. The nomination asserts: "Does not meet any of the four parts of WP:ARTIST". Let's just look at the fourth of these: "The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Not entirely sure about (a), but he seems to me to meet (b), (c) and (d); an achievement that I think is enough for us to be able to ignore the first three "parts". -- Hoary (talk) 04:15, 22 April 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.