Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Bowes


 * 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. John254 02:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

David Bowes
Fails WP:BIO Legionarius (talk) 07:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing nomination.--Legionarius (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

David Bowes has a long career as an artist, but it does not seem to be particularly remarkable.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.   —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep I'd say he passes WP:BIO. "Bowes' work is exhibited widely in the United States, and Europe": international exhibitions are criteria for notability for visual artsts. As for secondary sources, the article already cites one article and I have added an Artforum review in External links. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Please assume total good faith in my comments - you look much more experienced in the policy than me. I see his exhibitions here. But I do not see Bowes as
 * The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
 * The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
 * The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work,

which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
 * What can be questioned is if Bowes complies to (B) below since he fails the others:
 * The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries.
 * The galleries look respectable, but do not sound like major galleries. What do you think?--Legionarius (talk) 09:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, I don't think I am more experienced in this than you. My logic is simply that a) we now have two reviews of his work from significant periodicals; and b) this US artist has had, at very least, two exhibitions in France according to the artnet summary, as well as other shows. I can't tell if they represent significant exhibitions or not but my approach when it comes to serious artists is to err on the side of including, if there's any doubt. Let's see what others from the Visual Arts project will have to say, thanks. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Reviews in Artforum and Art in America, and participation in the Venice Biennale.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. those last references put the artist in a whole new light. Not so sure if he should be categorised as LGBT, because in the source he describes himself as heterosexual, being Basquiat his only same-sex relationship. Thoughts?--Legionarius (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for withdrawing the nomination. Yes, I'm not so sure about the LGBT cat myself, after I read the excellent citations that have been added. He self-identifies as straight except for Michel. I used the LGBT tag instead of Gay artists, as I thought Bisexual was still applicable. However, as this is a living person who apparently self-identifies hetero, it should probably just be removed. I'll do so. Cheers, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep Per above. -- David  Shankbone  19:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep Venice Biennale selection is strong evidence of notability. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2008 (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.