Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Will Robson

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 delete. Cirt (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will Robson

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

Sculptor and mosaic artist. Creator has obvious CoI. Is he notable? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 04:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

The article should be kept for the following reasons: the artist in question lived in Jamaica, and contributed to the tapestry of the Jamaican art scene whilst he was there. He was sought out and got commissions for five star, international rated hotels. Please note, that these weren't just local inns, and these projects were not tendered for, but he was invited to, as seen by him being chosen for Expo 92. If you look at this link (http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20071104/arts/arts1.html ) Jane Issa, who is a member of the Issa family who are owners of major hotel chains in Jamaica and the Caribbean, mentions Will and Margaret by (misspelt, sur)name. This article was done seven years after he left Jamaica and it shows that Will Robson has left his mark on the arts and crafts scene in that part of the world.

With regards to conflict of interest, I do take some sort of umbrage at this claim, because I am coming from the aspect of recording a person who contributed to the Jamaican art scene and the last time I recall, Wikipedia was dedicated to notable persons WORLDWIDE and not just artists in Europe or the USA. Sometimes these people do not get pinged on the google search, because said search is skewed towards American and European based artists. For example, if you look at the Wiki entry for Barrington Watson, who is a world noted Jamaican artist, he only has a stub, which is shameful. In addition, the notion of an online presence and the digital age didn't take root until 2001 (co incidentally, when wikipedia got its first start) and as such, the artist in question should not be penalised because articles about him are in newspaper archives, which can only be viewed on payment. In addition, with regards to other artists in terms of their presence online, its basically press releases put out by galleries, which is a form of self promotion.

In conclusion, as much as I can appreciate why one would think of my entry being a conflict of interest, the only conflict of interest is that I am a Jamaican, and that if I'm not moved to put notable Jamaicans forward, who will?Jazzypom (talk) 12:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO, not to mention one of the most obvious WP:COI/WP:SPAM cases I've ever seen. Why on earth does this guy think we should host his resume? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Andrew Lenahan's claims, on his entry in wikipedia how many times is his website listed, and if that is not advertising, I do not know what that is, and in terms of notability what is notable about Gary Jones http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Jones_%28footballer_born_1977%29. Is that entry anything more than a resume about what the guy has done? What is it with wikipedia and footballers? The whole thing about spam with regards to this article that I have posted is an unfair criticism.Jazzypom (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Figuring out whether an artist is notable is a tricky question, but without reliable sources, I can't figure it out. I'm leaning delete unless this can be fixed. Bearian (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:ARTIST, though this is admittedly hard for a modern mosaicist to do. Johnbod (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem encyclopedic or notable...Modernist (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2010 (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.