Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Chung (artist)

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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Chung (artist) (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)

GNG fail. Two claims of notability are made in the article. He's in the Anchorage Museum of Art collection, and he made a painting that got a lot of people upset and got large coverage. One collection does not meet WP:ARTIST, and the severed head of Trump painting is really BLP1E. There is also evidence of COI editing. All in all, I believe this artist might be notable in five years, but is not now. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on Afd, but if deleted (or kept I suppose) closing admin should fix the current Thomas Chung article as it was moved to a non-standard URL when this article was made. It probably should stay where it was since Thomas Chung even still redirects there. 2005 (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning Weak Delete - I'm seeing a good amount of local/Alaska coverage like this local PBS program and Anchorage Daily News, and a bunch of media freakout over the Everything painting (mostly in unreliable sources, but also e.g. AP and Artsy), but it's largely all about that one painting, with not much in depth about the person or his other work. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Wide coverage of the subject is easily found and is now in the article. I worked on the article and cleaned up POV and puffery, tightened writing and added reliable sources. Media coverage goes beyond the controversial painting. It includes feature newspaper and magazine articles and a public radio feature about the subject's art. Coverage is ample and meets WP:GNG. Multiple awards and gallery showings also contribute to notability. Passes WP:NARTIST and WP:PROF. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AuthorAuthor, thanks for improving the page. There is still just no way he passes WP:NARTIST and WP:PROF. Even his CV page only manages to list four short reviews. It's not that he hasn't done things, it's that the coverage is sparse. This is borderline GNG stuff, not anything higher. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of simplicity at AfD, could you link to the sources that we may have missed (those which are in depth, independent, and not local media)? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing enough independent sources to meet WP:NARTIST for the article as it is. Contribuine34 (talk) 01:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep or Move to draft - I am not sure about it meeting WP:NARTIST but I think we can keep it for some time by putting "Template:BLP sources" tag, otherwise move it to the draft. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 09:05, 28 November 2019 (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.