Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Wimberley

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. Aoidh (talk) 01:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Wimberley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

dubious notability. Can find virtually no coverage by reliable sources, seems to exist only to promote the subject FASTILY 23:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Photography, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This is clearly a promotional, CV-like article that requires serious pruning (which I will do after posting this comment). Regarding his notability, a quick BEFORE yielded three notable museum collections that is enough to pass WP:NARTIST (normally two notable museum collection are considered enough). These are: Portland Art Museum [1]; Museum of Fine Arts, Houston [2]; Yale University Art Gallery [3]. I've seen other museum collections online, but haven't yet checked if the institutions are notable enough to mention. Netherzone (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I've trimmed back most of the unsourced content, promotional content, and content that was solely sourced to his own website. I found a few reviews of his work online (but have not added them to the article at this time). I created a section for three notable museum collections plus citations. He meets WP:NARTIST and may also meet he also meets WP:GNG based on the reviews that exist online and the five that I just added to the article, four of which are WP:SIGCOV, the other a decent mention. Netherzone (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I couldn't find anything that satisfies any of the four criteria under WP:NARTIST, (There are 13,000 artists listed at the MFA for example, so being there is not notable) and main cite is WP:PRIMARY. MetricMaster (talk) 09:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC) This user has made 47 edits to Wikipedia. Their contribution history shows that 38 of these were to AFD discussions. The account exists for votestacking and has been blocked.[reply]

  @MetricMaster, I believe you are misunderstanding the WP:NARTIST SNG. He clearly meets criteria #4d of NARTIST: The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.. All three museums are notable per WP standards. The number of artists or artworks in a museum collection has no bearing whatsoever; if it did (by your logic) we would have to discount works held in the Met, the British Museum, Louvre, etc. That the citations for the collections are primary also has no bearing as they are used for verification purposes - searchable museum collections have been used for verification as long as I've been editing. Museum collections are not only curated, the objects in collections are heavily vetted by the institutional acquisitions board. He may also meets WP:GNG, based on the reviews I added to the article, however articles on artists do not have to meet both GNG & SNG. Netherzone (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep and please withdraw, per Netherzone's good work on the page, well sourced, and well represented in museums and publications. As it is now the page seems to have been saved, and removing it from AfD saves closer's time. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 08:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Unless the delete !vote is struck out the AfD nominator doesn't have the option to withdraw. WP:WDAFD Rupples (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  On the other hand it looks like the nominator can still put a note agreeing to withdraw but can't close the AfD. Rupples (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't see this as a shoo-in but there seems sufficient here to fulfill WP:NARTIST and likely Wimberley satisfies WP:GNG. Here's an art review in The Sacramento Bee.[4] Rupples (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2023 (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.