Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Nangle


 * 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 no consensus. North America1000 07:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Gregory Nangle

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I doubt the Wheaton Museum of American Glass qualifies as a major museum for purposes of WP:CREATIVE, andI see no other indications of notability. I do see a good deal of over-personal writing and self-promotion.  DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)  DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  00:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  00:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  00:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  00:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete for now at best as I found some links at News, Books and browsers but nothing outstandingly better. SwisterTwister   talk  00:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I updated more relevant links to show periodicals,publications and auction results. im not sure that dismissing the wheaton museum of american glass is grounds for removing this article? how would you determine th ecriteria for what a nationally recognized museum includes in its collection "not applicable"? open to suggestions on how to improve the information contained. Etidorhpaunderground (talk) 02:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep for now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etidorhpaunderground (talk • contribs) 02:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

i went back and looked up the requirements cited and i am certain that they are met.i have a vested interest in the discussion here. but i went and looked up the requirements and here is a refresher for the "WP:Artist "Creative professionals" "WP:AUTHOR" redirects here. For information about the authorship of Wikipedia articles, see WP:OWN. Shortcuts:

WP:ARTIST WP:AUTHOR WP:CREATIVE WP:ECONOMIST WP:FILMMAKER WP:DIRECTOR WP:JOURNALIST

Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by 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. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work (or works) 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 or museums. -the article shows clearly that the artist is regarded within their field as an important figure,the article clearly shows that this artist has made more than one significant public artworks (most notable the trinity roots 9/11 memorial in NYC of which a NY Times article was just published as of 12/25/2015) 2 public sculptures in the city of Philadelphia. the artist work has been featured in two books about sculpture. the artist is an active lecturer in their field and the artist work is listed in several notable galleries as well as notable collections and two notable museums. Keep this article --Etidorhpaunderground (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Removed bold from "Keep this article" above, so it is not misinterpreted as a separate !vote. The user already !voted above. North America1000 07:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: re-reading the article and the references, I would be inclined to accept notability on the basis of the NYTimes article on Trinity Roots ; I remain uncertain about the meuseum, which is a technological museum as much as a art museum, and if the unspecified work there is there ion the basis of technology rather than art or design, I don't think it would qualify. The article did give me a quite promotional impression, do the the equal weight on aspects of his life which are not notable, such as the abortive musical career. That sort of writing is characteristic of conflict of interest, but it is fixable.  DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: my research shows that the artworks included in the wheaton collection are simply that. artwork. not tecnology although if they were included in a museum ,regardless of whether it is for their merit as a technological advance or as an aesthetic one ,it still may qualify for inclusion. also upon furhter research this artist has work in another mueum for contemporary glass art. i added the link. i will continue to improve both the layout and format of this article as it still needs work Etidorhpaunderground (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC) arguing about who or what constitutes 'noteworthy' is like arguing about whose favorite color is 'better'.
 * Hard to see beyond the need to WP:TNT the horrible layout and unencyclopedic content - but I'm not seeing a lot of secondary sources which suggest notability. The sources on the page are almost all very brief mentions or (apparently) not independent of the artist, and I can't find much else. Unless something much more substantial turns up, I'm going to say delete. JMWt (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Etidorhpaunderground (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Note that the nominator has effectively withdrawn, stating in a comment, "re-reading the article and the references, I would be inclined to accept notability...(et al.) North America1000 06:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep the sight unseen and copper in the arts interviews help the article pass WP:BIO.--TM 20:28, 13 January 2016 (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.