In this article we are going to talk about
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Deis, a topic that has been the subject of great interest and debate in recent years.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Deis has captured the attention of academics, professionals and enthusiasts alike, and it is not surprising, given its impact on aspects as diverse as society, culture, technology and the economy. Over the next few lines, we will explore the various aspects of
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Deis, from its origins to its current influence, unraveling its complexities and offering a comprehensive view of this fascinating topic. We are confident that by the end of this article, you will have gained a deeper knowledge and appreciation of
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Deis.
- 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. (non-admin closure) ansh666 02:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Eric Deis (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)
Non-notable artist that does not pass WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG Maybeparaphrased (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- I've added about a dozen refs since the nomination. Newly added sources are decent. For example: the Vancouver Sun, Huffpost, Wired Magazine. I also found a significant award that he received in 2007, and that his work is in the Vancouver Art Gallery collection. Given the visibility of his public projects, the coverage by reliable sources and the award and collection, I think this meets WP:GNG. So, Keep. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Most of the sources are quite local, and the piece in the Vancouver Art Gallery was a gift of the artist rather than an acquisition . Still, the Wired piece and another in the Globe and Mail demonstrate both notability beyond BC, and significance that extends beyond a single story, I think enough to pass WP:GNG. They're on his art rather than on him but that's ok: their art, rather than their personal lives, is what artists should be notable for. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- David Eppstein, wow, your analysis is very astute and spot on. I do disagree on one point: the use of local coverage to determine notability. If local were a criteria for sources, then we would have to eliminate someone, for example, who was covered solely in local sources like the New York Times, The New Yorker, Vogue Magazine, the Wall Street Journal and so on. I think it's safe to question the size of a publication (the Nanaimo source is fairly weak), but to say that something is local and therefore does not count is not reasonable. Also, whether a piece is a collection is a gift or acquisition is of little consequence, I think: It's the acceptance that counts. The validation comes in the wanting.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 14:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- 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.