Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled (Kelly)

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. No prejudice against recreation in the future if sources emerge, as Johnbod suggests they might. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled (Kelly)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability - only sources are entries in a list, not indepth text about the artwork. GRuban (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless well-sourced critical commentary can be added to the article. Ellsworth Kelly was definitely a major artist, but that does not mean that each of his works is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs more references. Actually the level of coverage is such that, given time for art historians to get to work, every significant work by a major artist is likely to be notable. This is on display at one of the US's most prominent locations for modern sculpture. At the least a merge tio the artist's bio should have been proposed. Johnbod (talk) 18:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're arguing to give it time, references will be written. That's not a valid argument here.198.58.163.19 (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2018 (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.