Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Short

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) Pamzeis (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Short

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

considerable publicity, but no major works, no works in museums, no significant critical studies of his work . Just PR DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is true that he seems to fail WP:NARTIST. However he seems to meet GNG, since there is indeed a lot of coverage of his work (in addition to what is in the article). However the article needs a very serious trim.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs cleanup, but passes WP:GNG. Curiocurio (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A rare example of a maker whose cultural products sustain the legacy of the Wunderkammern, archives of objects of wonder. While I think of his work more as craft rather than art, historically his work aligns with David Wilson's Museum of Jurassic Technology; Thomas Dent Mutter's Mutter Museum; the historical Ashmolean Museum cabinets of curiousity; the Leverian Collection, and others in this niche arena. He has had sustained coverage; passes WP:GNG. I believe this article is a solid keep, altho he does not fit into the categories by which "artists" works are usually measured (museum collections, permanent public art works, critical/analytical art historical writing, etc.) - he's a rara avis; a horse of a different color; an anomaly. Netherzone (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per discussion before the relisting. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Edit The subject is notable in his field and the article does meet WP:GNG. The existing references from BBC are WP:SIGCOV. It needs further improvement in terms of content and references per WP:CCPOL and WP:MOS. A few notable references that can be added include the following: Quartz,The Indepdendent,Birmingham TV, Digital Journal, Art House Scotland. Unsourced information can be removed and replaced with information from the above references. Nasty Tunes of Sally (talk) 23:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per multiple references across multiple events. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2020 (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.