Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Kottmann


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Don Kottmann

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

GNG Fail. Wikipedia is best source as there appear to be no others. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nothing stated here constitutes a notability claim for an artist at all, and none of it is supported by any evidence of reliable source coverage about him. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep He was awarded a Joan Mitchell Foundation grant in 2014. And here is a Regional Museum solo show . The CV here indicates about a dozen collections, most of which are corporate which are often hard to verify, but the |Don%20Kottmann|1345 four works in the Canada Council Artbank alone should do the trick to put this over the top. --Theredproject (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The Joan Mitchell grant is good for an artist ($25,000), but neither GNG or NARTIST says anything about grants. If it did, we would have to give articles to everyone who ever got a Canada Council, NEA or similar grant. most artists I know have had triple that in grants, and not all are notable. The Regina show is a gallery listing and not independent. The Art Bank is excellent, I did not see that, thank you. However in the total absence of other sources, it's not enough.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Grants from foundations are not notability claims for an artist in and of themselves, especially if the foundation is so little-known that the grant can be "referenced" only to the foundation's own self-published website — the ability of an award or grant to count as an article-clinching notability claim is strictly coterminous with the extent to which the media can be shown to care about that award or grant by reporting its winners or recipients as news. Bearcat (talk) 04:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg  jhp  jm  01:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Kottmann has been showing in commercial galleries and his work appears to command 5-digit prices. The problem is that there is very little, if any, coverage in independent, reliable sources. There is a documentary about him (an abridged version is available on youtube), but it's been produced by by a school where he teaches, ACAD). There is an exhibition text for an exhibition at stride, More real than nature: The work of Don Kottmann by Tanya E. Hartman, but such texts are usually commissioned, and not created independently. Even if we accept the Mitchell grant and the exhibition at the Nerman museum as sufficient evidence of notability, I cannot find any material that would sustain an article. Vexations (talk) 14:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Cite book added, but article does not meet NARTIST/BASIC/GNG. Sam Sailor 07:25, 5 October 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.