Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Dyment (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Dave Dyment
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of an artist, with no strong notability claim and no strong reliable source coverage to carry it. Two of the three footnotes are to directly affiliated primary sources that cannot carry notability -- but while the one other footnote is a reliable source, one media hit is not enough coverage to get a person over WP:GNG all by itself as the only notability-supporting source in play. And the notability claims here are not "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much better than this, either. As well, the sources proffered in the first discussion (which I did not know about until after this nomination was already completed) are not bolstering his notability to any significant degree, as the vast majority of them are glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage about other things — and besides the anon IP's one source that was already in the article anyway, the only other source that represented substantive coverage about him is from a university student newspaper, which is a type of source that can be used for extra verification of stray facts after GNG has already been covered off by stronger ones, but not a source that counts toward the passage of GNG in the first place. So I am not willing to withdraw this just because I didn't know about a prior discussion that I had no responsibility to psychically know about — the sources that were offered as proof of notability in the first discussion are not actually proof of notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep as per the discussion in the previous AFD from earlier this month. I looked at the sources provided by 96.127.244.201, and I find they are sizeable in-depth reviews (e.g. Canadian Art). The Globe and Mail references are not just a glancing namechecks. The Art on Paper reference is not really visible, but it appears to be starting at least a paragraph discussing Dyment. The Queens Journal article discusses his work in detail. So does the Toronto Star review. The coverage appears sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG and therefore, as in the last AFD, the obvious conclusion is: keep. Ross-c (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The strong RS are the two long in-depth Canadian Art reviews, and the Toronto Star review. Add to that the fact that he is a coauthor of a piece in the MOMA collection, and that he gets many more than trivial namechecks for his curating work.... and you have basic GNG. I'll also paste in what I said under the last IP my ISP assigned me(96.127.244.201): "I saw two decent-sized reviews in Canadian Art. He did a CD that became part of the NY MOMA collection as well. The article is very CV like and needs to be rewritten... Also mentioned for his curatorial work in the Globe and Mail here and here, and in Art on Paper here, as an artist in C Magazine here, and an excellent critical review in the Queens Journal here. And here is a significant review in the Toronto Star of his artwork. That's enough for me, so I will say keep."96.127.243.251 (talk) 06:04, 20 August 2018 (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.