Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Shafley


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 02:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Greg Shafley

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I came across this via the BLP noticeboard, but I can't really see where Shafley has received any true coverage for his work. The article asserts that he's shown his art in various locations, but I can't determine if these would be enough for him to pass notability guidelines for artists.

A look at the reference section brings up nothing since he appears to not be listed in any of those sites. I tried performing a search for him and other than some mention of him in regards to taking nude photographs of his students around 2001, there really isn't anything out there for him. He was never officially brought to court or arrested for the charges, so they remain allegations and not something we should have in an article.

So... if anyone can find coverage of him and his work for something that would assert firm notability I'm open to withdrawing this. I just can't really find anything for him to show that he'd merit an article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with nom.New Media Theorist (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Makes it into Getty Images (no charges made,  the fact he took the nude photos and molds of students is not contested)  and is a listed artist in the  Dictionary of Canadian Artists .    shows he got a few mentions at the time it became public.  Collect (talk) 15:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I would call that entry in the Canadian Heritage Information Network a genuine "notability error". I'm surprised, as usually this is a good source for aritst info. It cites a number of small newspaper articles for minor shows in the middle of nowhere, and mentions what is essentially art practice as a hobby: "Some of his projects in this medium are his life-size sculptures of young women ready to go swimming to be placed on the site of his and his wife's new home on the North Channel shore at Blind River facing Lake Huron." I have real doubts about the notability of his practice...New Media Theorist (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note The school incident seems sufficient otherwise (lots of Toronto Star coverage, and in other Canadian publications concerning such acts in schools for making nude molds of female students, and nude photos of female students) - we do usually allow artists who are listed in a recognized source to be considered "notable" and we do not second-guess such sources . While the first might be BLP1E, the catenation with a major source listing him is, I suggest, dispositive that he is notable by Wikipedia standards. Collect (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 07:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I don't know that being listed in Getty Images is really enough, given that it's only about the student molestation charges, which I need to stress never actually went to court. It'd be a huge BLP issue (and possible nightmare) if one of the main arguments for notability stemmed around charges that never came to fruition, as he left his job before anything went further. To my knowledge crimes are pretty much considered to be alleged (with only a very few exceptions) if they do not go to court and until it goes to court, it shouldn't be considered notability giving. Even then, a crime is not automatically notable because it has received coverage, as the coverage has to be very extensive (meaning beyond routine) in order to show notability, given that this can be a BLP issue. In any case, Getty Images has a lot of pictures of various people and I've never seen it used as a source for notability. I'm just very, very leery about keeping an article on someone who has almost zero coverage on the Internet and his main claim to fame at this point in time is that a group of students accused him of molesting them under the guise that it was for art. That the article is also being used to promote the artist isn't really helpful either, although promotional-ness isn't a reason to delete in and of itself. I just kind of see this article being a nightmare to maintain given how insanely difficult it is to source this and that the coverage for him is, as New Media Theorist stated, for local shows. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 07:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete for Tokyogirl79 and New Media Theorist. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. He doesn't meet WP:Creative, and the scandal is BLP1E material. Even the Getty image introduces him in the context of the scandal. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  01:44, 23 October 2015 (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.