Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Young (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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Regardless of whether it should have been draftified or not, consensus is clear among established editors. Star  Mississippi  02:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Ben Young (artist)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Article was moved to draft space by an experienced editor, then moved back to article space by another editor. The subject doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG, it's difficult to find sources online because there is a better known glass artist of the same name. Current sources are of questionable quality (one is on a gallery website, another is an interview). The two inline citations were to Apple Music and Spotify, suggesting the article is here to promote the artist. Sionk (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment. An article that has been around since 2010 should never be moved to draft space, certainly not without notifying all the editors who edited it over the years. If the subject is not notable, the article should be deleted through AfD discussion, but lack of inline sourcing or poor formatting are not justifiable reasons to draftify. Station1 (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the point I made in my reply to Sionk. This article has been around for years and been contributed to by numerous editors. In my view the artist is notable as attested to by two cited independent reviews and a Swiss newspaper article. The fact that there is another artist of the same name is immaterial. Anyone is free to write an article about that particular subject using disambiguation. MrBongleton (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep Just thought I'd make my stance more clear. I forgot to input my bold typeface. I've already shared my opinion here in my reply to Sionk. MrBongleton (talk) 01:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, it seems to me that the sources are quite legitimate. One is a newspaper review for an exhibition the artist had in Bern, Switzerland, in 2011. There's a paywall for the newspaper in question (Der Bund) but that doesn't make the source any less legitimate. The relevant information is clearly visible in the newspaper article header (see link: https://www.derbund.ch/kontrapunkte-157989066396). There is also a review from Paris-based Le Musée Privé from 2011 which seems reliable (see link: https://web.archive.org/web/20120402105046/http://www.le-musee-prive.com/expositions/ben-young-locuslux-gallery-amsterdam.html). It's also worth pointing out that quite a few editors have contributed to this article over the past 8 years or more and none of them has seen fit to put it up for deletion. If you look at the artist's resume on his website (https://benyoungart.com/pages/about.html) you will also see a long list of exhibitions including ones referenced in this article (Group Exhbition: June 8/July 30 2011, Galerie Rigassi, corresponding to Der Bund article source, and Solo Exhibition: May 21/July 16 2011: Happy Nihilism, Locuslux Gallery, Amsterdam, corresponding to Le Musée Privé review). As an art historian interested in contemporary art I have found this article quite useful and knowing of the artist's work have contributed to it over the years as have others, evidently. Clearly the artist is also a recording musician but again that doesn't seem problematic. The biographical details referring to his musical activities are merely statements of fact that readers might actually find useful. MrBongleton (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, to be honest I'm surprised to see an article I contributed to and that's been around since 2010 being put up for deletion. I think it does what Wikipedia is here to do - inform. I don't think its deletion would benefit anyone. As mentioned by Mr Bongleton, there is a long list of exhibitions on the artist's website that correlate perfectly with the information in the Wikipedia article and indicate that the subject is notable. Artincider (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Bands and musicians,  and England.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  01:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete Sources are trivial mentions and WP:ROUTINE coverage. Article created and edited by a series of single purpose accounts, such as Bagman23, Insider.art, Arthurrubenstein, Artincider and MrBongleton. Comes nowhere close to meeting the WP:ARTIST notability guideline. Elspea756 (talk) 04:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * CU note Artincider and MrBongleton are being operated by the same person. I have blocked both, and have struck through one set of comments - obviously it is inappropriate for one person to attempt to have two voices in a discussion of this nature. I think it likely that they are being operated by the same person behind the string of accounts that have edited this article in series, but the old ones are stale - if any of them reactivate and engage in this discussion or continue editing the article, please let me know. Girth Summit  (blether)  14:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. He has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:28, 5 February 2024 (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.