Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georg Nees


 * 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The result was   nomination withdrawn, no remaining 'delete' votes. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Georg Nees

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not meet Notagbility criteria, specifically for creative persons. There is no indication that he 1)is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; 2)is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique; 3)has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews; nor 4)his work has (a) become a significant monument, (b) 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 or museums. Wkharrisjr (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. With works in the permanent collection of the Victoria & Albert and a major retrospective of his works at ZKM, I think WP:CREATIVE #4 is satisfied. In addition, the sources all call him one of the pioneers of computer-generated art, so #2 seems satisfied as well. The article needs significant cleanup but that's not what AfD is for. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have cleaned up, sourced, and significantly expanded the article. I think his notability should now be very obvious. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It is now a Keep.Wkharrisjr (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - His works are represented in the permanent collection of a notable museum. A brif Google Book search will find stuff like this on his involvement of early computer generated art. -- Whpq (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2011 (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.