Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Woods


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Lee Woods

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable. News.google search for "Lee Woods" paint* returns one hit about a painting that sold in a group auction and one notice by Lee searching for "lost" paintings (and some other people named Something Lee Woods, or places with "Lee Woods" in the name). No hits that I see in scholar or books. If there's a better way to check for the notability of artists, I'm all ears, but there are no refs given in the article and none that I can find. NJGW (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  —Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - A search on "Lee Woods" "Genetic Zoo" on Google news resulted in several articles behind pay walls that appear to feature the artist as the primary subject. The article also lists offline soruces in the reference section so it would be inappropriate to delete until these offline soruces are reviewed. -- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete My concern is that there's no actual arts-related coverage - it's all, it seems, one or two AP articles that have been spread around - kudos to the publicist. The few mentions I can find don't say why he's notable, just that he made a few paintings in 1999 that have 'mad cow' and g-mod foods as their theme. I can't find a notable gallery that's shown his work, either. Even his own website doesn't list a CV that could be searched/verified! The Swiss company he claims to be repped (the book called W&G Kunst Graphics Catalogue, looks like stock graphics) by turns up nothing and his commercial reps are these folks who are also non-notable  Deadchildstar (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There doesn't have to be arts-related coverage, just coverage. One or two AP articles spread around (i.e. worldwide coverage) is a significant contribution to notability, as far as wikipedia is concerned, and something most artists would not achieve. How that has been achieved, e.g. a good publicist, is irrelevant, or else we would be deleting quite a lot of very well-known artists, who have PR teams behind them. Absence of gallery shows is also irrelevant, if there is sufficient coverage in sources.  Ty  11:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ALso, it seems this is up for deletion Genetic Zoo Deadchildstar (talk) 13:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Merge - I removed the proposed deletion tag from Genetic Zoo because the deletion criteria was completely false. The article is sourced and if others think it should be deleted then another AfD could decide that. Lee Woods does have media coverage, but as is noted here that coverage is for the Genetic Zoo paintings. I suggest that his page be merged to that one as that seems to be what he is famous for. --  At am a chat 19:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I still don't see any verification as to why either the artist or the paintings are notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadchildstar (talk • contribs) 02:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply - The paintings have had significant coverage in reliable sources. How does that not satisfy WP:N? I'd argue that Woods himself may be covered under WP:BLP1E, that "one event" being his Genetic Zoo paintings, but the suggestion there is to merge the article (which is what I'm already suggesting). --  At am a chat 15:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - An artist's notability rests on his works. In this case, it is one series of paintings.  I would support a merge as well, although I would choose to merge Genetic Zoo into Lee Woods.  Material about Lee Woods other works could be included without it looking odd having it housed in an article about Genetic Zoo.  -- Whpq (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment All the press articles (from the Google News search and listed in the article) are from two local tabloid papers: The Plymouth Evening Herald and its sister paper the Plymouth Western Morning News. There is no coverage beyond Plymouth.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Google news in addition to regional coverage shows the Washington Times and The Independent, so there is coverage beyond Plymouth:
 * Video archivists dig up scary ones: `Exquisite Cadaver' and `Hatchet... Pay-Per-View - Washington Times - HighBeam Research - Sep 10, 1998 Genetic zoo paintings broke mould in art world ; Just when collectors might be excused into ... Lee Woods appeared with an individual series of pictures. ... Related web pages
 * Television Review | Article from The Independent - London | HighBeam ... Pay-Per-View - Independent - London - HighBeam Research - Mar 18, 2002 Article: Genetic zoo paintings broke mould in art world ; Just when collectors might be ... Lee Woods appeared with an individual series of pictures. ... Related web pages
 *  Ty  11:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * These are unrelated. One is a review of some horror movies and the other is a TV review . The fact that the same phrasing appears on the search page looks odd as well.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 11:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Google News search 'lee woods' + 'genetic zoo' + 'western morning news' shows that this is a single Western Morning News piece, nothing to do with the Washington Times or the Independent.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well spotted. It is a flaw in Google's search results.  Ty  02:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And what is notable about these paintings? Where have they been shown? I think the Genetic Zoo article should also be deleted. Deadchildstar (talk) 04:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They don't have to have been shown anywhere, if there are sufficient sources that mention them to meet WP:N. You're confusing artistic worth with the wikipedia definition of notability, which is an entirely different consideration.  Ty  11:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't see a problem, this artist seems both notable and interesting...Modernist (talk) 13:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Change per Ethico above...Modernist (talk) 10:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Ethicoaestheticist has shown above that what appeared to be good sources are not. The only source extant is a local press report. There are several other local press reports that mention the artist briefly, but nothing else of note has come to light.  Ty  23:01, 16 August 2009 (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.