Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin John Callanan (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Spartaz Humbug! 19:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Martin John Callanan
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The article has numerous references, but leaving aside the self-authored sources and the blog posts, the primary sources listed fall short of the requirements of WP:CREATIVE. The artist has participated in open-submission competitions and group exhibitions, and has produced a book for Bookworks. He has not been invited to participate in international festivals such as the Moscow and Seoul film festivals, as implied by the article text. In addition, there are no secondary sources (press reviews, books etc.) to support the notability of the subject per WP:BIO. Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.   —Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, & as recreation of deleted article - he may become notable, but has not done so yet. Johnbod (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Here (if you're an admin) is the article in the form in which it was served with its first AfD. During the course of that AfD it did not improve, and I think its deletion was entirely correct. The article that you now see may or may not merit deletion, but it is not a mere recreation of the deleted article. Let's judge it on its merits -- or judge the article-worthiness of its subject by the evidence presented in the article as it is now. -- Hoary (talk) 03:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC) ..... PS and if you're not an admin, you can see the old article here. -- Hoary (talk) 00:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.   —Hoary (talk) 03:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete why is this still here? Modernist (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you mean "Why is this re-creation of a deleted article still here?"? If so, well, it's not a re-creation of a deleted article. If you mean something else, what is it that you mean? (I really am interested, as I'm trying to make up my own mind about this article.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A little of both above comments, needs more time, IMHO....although it is an improvement from the first article.Modernist (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Having been published by Bookworks is enough to merit an entry alone. Artlondon (talk) 11:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete no evidence of notability. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. [Thanks for letting everyone know about this page]. The is no clear justification for deletion of the article. The article is objective. The references are of high quality of you are familiar with the field in which Callanan works. I have just found out he is to be Artist-in-Residence ar UCL's Environmental Institute for a year from October 2008. Perhaps the article needs slight revision by someone familiar with this area of practice, the references are highly valued in this field and are certainly peer. Even this nominated feels against the ethos of WP. Artlondon (talk) 11:53, 5 September 2008 (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.