Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Wafer

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. Speedy Keep criterion met. Tyrenius (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Wafer[edit]

Withdraw Jeremy Wafer now meets inclusion, sources to match. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as far as discernable, does not meet notability per wp:bio. Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: his work is in the collection of the National Museum of African Art in Washington, DC. That should establish sufficient notability. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 02:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

somehow, having one of your works owned by a gallery doesn't seem to me to make an artist notable, I myself have an artwork owned by Australia's National Gallery, am I notable? no. for further info check out Wikipedia:Notability (people) -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, Wikipedia:Notability (people) does explicitly list this as one of the standards for establishing notability. Under creative professionals, "The person's work ... is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries." —David Eppstein (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the fact that he only has 1 (one). -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has several works in the museum: [1]. As for whether you should have a wiki article yourself - based on a work in Australia's National Gallery, I say go for it ;)--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for "the fact that he only has 1", it was demonstrated to be false in this AfD, prior to you calling it a fact: four major museums, galleries, and libraries were listed. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is the subject of at least one book: ISBN 062027381X and a chapter in another: ISBN 1868729877. Also subject of several articles/reviews in art journals such as [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. In addition to the Smithsonian, you can see that he's in collections at The Library of Congress, The South African National Gallery, The Johannesburg Art Gallery. Tempting to say delete because he's an African artist we've never heard of, but we've got plenty of material here. --JayHenry (talk) 06:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok well, if you add refs, this will begin to make a good article and then satisfy guidelines. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 12:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JayHenry. Easily exceeds notability standards. Someone could probably make a Good Article out of this with a trip to a library. (BTW, what, pray-tell, is a post-deletionist?) Zagalejo^^^ 07:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above. All examples satisfy WP:BIO. Wisdom89 (talk) 07:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Work held in several national collections.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2008 (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.