Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Rennert


 * 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. The strongest arguments were for keeping, including supplying sources, and having reviewed the article for AfC. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Jim Rennert

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:CREATIVE -- no critical studies, no work in major museums. FailsGNG -- sources are local papers, mere listings, and himself. ,  DGG ( talk ) 08:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: need more people to make comment on this
 * Keep, First I should disclose I am the editor that approved this article out of AfC. References in the article include coverage by a New York City station, NYC parks department and artsy.net. Articles not included that could be added include articles by southwestart.com, santafeartajournal.com, and broward palm beach. His art has been featured in Union Square park in NYC (twice), which itself alone is potentially enough for GNG, not to mention a half dozen articles specifically about him, his work and exhibitions. Notability easily established, but that's not to say the article doesn't need improvement. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &Alpha; Guy into Books &trade;  &sect; ( Message ) -  14:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: in addition to the references the article already cites, this, this and this constitute enough significant coverage to pass WP:CREATIVE.   Dr Strauss   talk   17:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The first is a local newspaper about a local attraction, which is not discriminating coverage; second is about a temporary exhibition, 3rd is from one of the many NY neighborhood websites. I think the right interpretation of NCREATIUVE is that it is an additional requirement on the GNG, in order to rule out temporary and minor material of this sort. But for those who think it just a guide to GNG, then the solution is to interpret the requirements for substantial, independent, and reliable strictly. Local news blogs are not RSs for notability.  DGG ( talk ) 21:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- does not meet WP:CREATIVE, which would require inclusion in a permanent collection of a major institution. A temporary exhibit does not qualify. No SIGCOV to meet GNG either, so it's a "delete" for me. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric On leave 06:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Commment WP:CREATIVE does not require that an artist be in museum collection: it simply says that if they are, notability is met. The collections criterion is one of several criteria for notability listed in WP:CREATIVE.96.127.243.112 (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2017 (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.