Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Claydon

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. The consensus below is that sufficient sources exist to establish notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Claydon[edit]

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

Not notable and no assertion of notability. No in-line refs and links provided demonstrate that he exists and that he is an artist who has exhibited - nothing demonstrates any notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article does not do itself any favours. The "references" that look a bit like references but are not really references at all, just links to the top levels of some websites, are particularly unhelpful and made me very suspicious. Going hunting for something better to hang the article on reveals a bit more though. He does have three works in the Tate collection, although none are currently on show[1]. Here he is being reviewed by The Independent[2] and Frieze[3]. He is certainly not Picasso but I think he probably scrapes over the notability threshold. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the references shown above by DanielRigal constitute notability. Bus stop (talk) 01:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DanielRigal and Bus stop; not a very good article but seems to pass the GNG. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ ^talk 16:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sourcing identified by DanielRigal is sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2012 (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.