Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Cummins

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. -- Cirt (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Cummins[edit]

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

Could not find any specific assertions of notability amid the high jargon-density waffle. God Emperor^Talk 17:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great googly moogly. Deletion process aside, virtually none of the existing text should be permitted to survive a copy-editing. Setting aside that problem, the closest this subject comes to meeting WP:ARTIST is criterion 4b ("has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition"). And that's only if we're generous enough to consider "This is not a photo show" to be a "significant exhibition" -- or, beyond that, to consider the "Unit B" of that exhibition, located in the home of the exhibition organizer, to be "significant". Personally, I'm not that generous. Delete. Serpent's Choice (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with fire and storm: Oh. My. God. For my part, I'm not remotely that generous; I rather think that an "un"photography exhibit in San Antonio was not what the writer of the guideline had in mind for "significant" exhibitions. Leaving aside verbiage so impenetrable and pretentious as to suggest intentional farce, of the four links that aren't blatantly created by the subject, two in fact repeat info off of the subject's self-submitted bio, and the other two are broken. Fails WP:BIO. Ravenswing 05:48, 10 June 2011 (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.