Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Slee (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 KEEP. postdlf (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Slee (artist)

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

No indication of notability per WP:CREATIVE (as an artist) or WP:PROF (as an academic). Article appears to be a minor rewording of this source, possibly making it a WP:COPYVIO; removing this content would leave barely a stub. Kinu ^t/_c 19:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A 10 minute Google search turned up various references now added to the article, including this essay that accompanies his recent exhibition at the Victoria & Albert Museum in London and discusses "Slee's important position in contemporary visual art". Clear notability. AllyD (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —AllyD (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References abound for this artist. Just a couple of other examples: here's a review of one of Slee's exhibitions by BBC Collective, and here's book about him by Garth Clark. Article needs to be worked, not deleted. -- Stephen Gilbert (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On WP:Creative, Slee is regarded as an important figure and is widely cited by peers or successors. He has created a collective body of work that has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles. On WP:Prof he meets Wikipedia's "professor test". On WP:copyvio, there are several references and the page does not depend on a single source. Biographical information on birthplace and education is bound to be similar in all accounts. The article can be improved but deletion is inappropriate. Marshall46 (talk) 09:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2011 (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.