Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Travis Collinson

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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Collinson[edit]

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

B GetSomeUtah (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as no valid reason for deletion has been presented. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 14:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The log of April 1 is overfilled
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 14:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry. Newbie at listing these. Please don't bite. Reason is non-notability and created by account that seems purely commercial in nature. The article is an advertisement. GetSomeUtah (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't read like an advertisement, whether you're right or not about the article creator's intent. He's clearly a notable painter, loosely speaking: whether he is by our definition of the term...? His work is certainly known and exhibited and written about. The weeklies SF Gate and OC Weekly that are on the article aren't bad -- they're not solely devoted to him but they're much more than passing mentions. And I wonder if some of those exhibitions -- we have solo, group, curated, public -- don't combine to meet WP:NARTIST: "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition." Combining the coverage that we do have with all his exhibitions, I'd say weak keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is the first official relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 20:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Artist seems to be notable as extensively exhibited and covered offline. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 18:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete, too soon. Artist has shown in two minor regional museums. Not really notable. Netherzone (talk) 22:58, 20 April 2017 (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.