Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Peri


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 11:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Peter Peri

 * – ( View AfD View log )

There are little to no reliable sources to justify a bio article (really just a stub at this point). His bio at Tate is taken directly from the Wikipedia article. Mansheimer (talk) 05:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak keep: Although this has been a CV-type article, with possible WP:COI curation, the references that I have added verify the subject's work as included in notable collections and shown at notable galleries; I would prefer more critical coverage but there is probably enough for WP:ARTIST criteria 4(b)&(d). AllyD (talk) 07:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: It is worth noting that the instances of the article prior to today included a Bibliography section, some of which may be substantial coverage. AllyD (talk) 07:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep meets WP:NARTIST as he is in several collections. He has also been in some serious exhibitions. Thanks to AllyD for the improvements. --- Possibly (talk) 07:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep This should be pretty basic when considering an AfD. If an artists has representation by a notable gallery, check their website, look up the artist, look for a heading titled something like "bibliography" or "press". When you see a long list of titles by publishers like The Times, The New York Times and Phaidon, do not nominate, but fix the article with the sources you just found. Don't make other people do the work. Vexations (talk) 11:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Stop assuming bad faith and don't make demands of ordinary editors trying to clean up and improve Wikipedia. It's not my job to fix articles that are unsourced or badly sourced. That's up to the person who have access to the materials you're referring to, because obviously they are not online or easily accessible. Even now the article barely has enough sources to fill it out. Perhaps you should demand the COI editor to have the subject provide all these wonderful sources you're referencing and then maybe you can flesh this thing out properly. Mansheimer (talk) 14:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , see WP:BEFORE Vexations (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * the multiple collections should have been enough to stop you from doing the nomination.--- Possibly (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The lack of reliable sources available for a proper article make this a valid nomination, as per my interpretation. Obviously others and yourselves disagree, which is actually the point of AfD. Again, both of you need to stop assuming bad faith and acting as if AfD is some kind of automatic death blow to an article or that the sky has somehow fallen. Plenty of people have been weighing in here, though unfortunately it appears that standards for inclusion continue to decline and simply the fact that an artist has works in a few collections (and yet has very little written about their life and career, making the article a perpetual stub unless and until that artist gets written about and reviewed more in the future) is enough for inclusion. However, that can and may change in the future, so there is nothing wrong with my having nominated this article for AfD. I note that neither of you bothered to work on the article prior to this AfD, and even now there is still not much IMHO justifying this article at this time. Mansheimer (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If the artist verifiably meets WP:NARTIST, then they are notable and there is no need for an AfD. It is pretty simple. It also appears to be backed up by the seven editors voting keep here, citing that reasoning. --- Possibly (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep He clearly meets NARTIST 4(d) and HEY per 's work, as Possibly and Vexations have noted. Theredproject (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - Peri meets criteria 4d of WP:NARTIST, the article should be kept. Netherzone (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep He meets WP:NARTIST as having several collections in notable galleries. GooeyMitch (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per discussion, and a man who is also notable for being one of the world's most unusual set of triplets (per lead sentence "He lives and works in London, where he was born with his wife and dog.") deserves a well-earned Wikipedia page. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * article seems to be self-published? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mracattack (talk • contribs)
 * Please Keep i am an artist and should have a wikipedia entry also galleries like it when i can show an entry on this website. Peterperiart (talk) 11:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably no concern, the article looks safe and this removal discussion has reached the vicinity of WP:SNOW. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, notwithstanding the obvious autobiography, per WP:SNOW. As and I have asserted, we're looking for pieces of art in multiple major art museums, and the like, to show WP:NARTIST. Bearian (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2021 (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.