Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Meyer (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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Meyer (artist)[edit]

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

Non-notable person. None of his artwork is popular (sure he has plenty of work in galleries, but the galleries aren't well known). There is only one page that links to him and that is List of people from Hackney. Ug5151 (talk) 03:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 18. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 03:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible procedural close No rationale has been offered and the article has not been tagged for AfD. (Add to that the subject's presence in the Tate collection (5 works) and British Council page, indicating that for any AfD to proceed it would need a clear justification.) AllyD (talk) 07:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would think artists in the permanent collection of a nationally-significant museum like The Tate Modern would qualify as notable. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added an AfD notice to the article and relisted the discussion. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As an artist who was mainly active in the 1970s and 80s there's little online. Re WP:ARTIST, he does have work in the Tate (in UK) and National Gallery of Australia collections but does he meet "several notable galleries or museums"? There's very little information about him online in reliable sources. The Tate website has good info on one of his series of prints[1]. No academic studies that I can see (either in journals or exhibition catalogs). I can't find any reviews online, but most of his major shows were in the pre-internet era and e.g. The Bulletin (Sydney) has a review from 1973 that's in snippet view on Google Books. I suspect someone with access to print sources (particularly from Australia) could establish notability, but I can't. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Multiple works held in notable museums as noted above do establish notability for an artist. Additionally, I was able to dig up a little coverage in this book. There is a snippet view which makes it difficult to evaluate significance of the coverage but it is there. I also found this article from The Age which reviews one of Meyer's shows. -- Whpq (talk) 21:57, 29 November 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.