Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Edelman

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Edelman[edit]

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

The article does not meet notability guidelines. Based on the article, which is little more than a resume, and on an online search, it seems that the subject is a successful but minor artist who has not met any of the notability criteria for creative professionals (not widely cited by peers, not an originator of a new technique, not a contributor to a significant body of work, etc.), and none of his work has appeared in major museum collections or in exhibitions beyond a regional level. Marylanderz (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It is not possible to examine the references online, limiting the ability to determine the depth or significance of the coverage in the book "Iron Work 2" so the endorsement of the article cannot be done with full confidence, but apparently he and his work are covered in the book "Iron Work 2" as well as in multiple articles in a specialized journal devoted to blacksmithing, "The Anvil's Ring." This would barely satisfy WP:N. Since he has had a career spanning 7 years or so as a successful artist, this coverage keeps clear of the "one event" hurdle. Edison (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article stands, but per WP:HEY there is a possibility of achieving WP:N. Ty 19:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-encyclopedic...Modernist (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2010 (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.