Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Baerg

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. WP:GNG alone is sufficient, regardless of what WP:ARTIST says. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Baerg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I think this is borderline, but after being unresolved for notability for 8 years, I want to get it resolved, and I couldn't establish that he meets WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Reads like a puff piece and subject lacks notability. Meatsgains (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think he just meets WP:GNG. In addition to the Toronto Star article on him that's already in the Wikipedia article, we see this story on him from the University of Manitoba newspaper Manitoban, this piece in webzine Mixedbagmag and this coverage by CBC News. My own personal rule of thumb for "multiple" sources is three and I think he just meets that, when taken as a whole. I agree with the nominator that it's borderline but I land just over the other side of that line. I don't think he meets any of the other criteria of WP:ARTIST btw. His work has been exhibited but not significantly enough, at this time, from what I can see. So I do believe it's GNG or bust. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as reliable sources have been found as above, I think WP:GNG has been passed.Atlantic306 (talk) 04:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are more references than currently listed in the article, but any claim to notability is weak, and I think he fails almost all notability criteria for Creative professionals. Per WP:ARTIST: 1) He is not regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. 2) He is not known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. 3) His work has not been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. 4a) His work has not become a significant monument. 4b) His work has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition. 4c) His work has not won significant critical attention. 4d) His work is not represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. This claim: "He has won several art awards from the Canada Council for the Arts and the Ontario Arts Council" is an exaggeration. As far as I can tell, he has won the Emerging Artist Award for the Premier’s Awards for Excellence in the Arts and was awarded one grant from the Canada Council. I can't find any sources that call the Emerging Artist Award 'prestigious'. Unlike receiving a notable award, receiving a grant does not make an artist notable. Mduvekot (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have been advised ( see Richard Alexander discussion on WP:NACTOR) that the above quoted rules are actually guidelines to help indicate whether an artist is likely to be covered in reliable sources and passWP:GNG. That he passes WP:GNG through significant reliable sources coverage makes him notable even though he may fail WP:ARTIST. Similarly, if an artist passes some of the criteria of WP:ARTIST but has no coverage in RS ( which happens) he cannot pass WP:GNG.Atlantic306 (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The subject passes WP:BASIC. Source examples include: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 9 February 2016 (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.