Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Smith (artist)


 * 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   speedy keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200  (talk &#124; ctrb) 18:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Richard Smith (artist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The tone of the piece suggests this is a vanity article. A Google search is not turning up anything meaningful for me. Itsalleasy (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Presumably this means you did not bother to look at the first hit, which would have shown that the Tate Gallery has an extensive holding of his work. See WP:BEFORE.TheLongTone (talk) 00:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, am quite new to Wikipedia so learning the ropes here, but am confused by the idea that this article is a 'vanity' one. It's about an important artist and has a range of sources to back up the information listed. There is already an article in German on the subject but not one in English - strange, since he's an English artist. So I see no reason at all to delete the article. devereux1978] — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated comment added 19:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, the tone is just factual - this happened, then that happened, etc, so I don't understand the point about tone at all. [User:devereux1978|devereux1978] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devereux1978 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Smith easily passes notability guidelines, as sources in article demonstrate. It's a stub, sure, but nothing wrong with its tone either.TheLongTone (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, as I mentioned before I'm new here so I am finding my way through trial and error. Point taken about it being a stub, I just wanted to sketch out a starting-point that can be expanded...(Devereux1978) — Preceding undated comment added 23:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. The Tate and Venice Biennale shows, and the pieces in the Tate and MoMA, are more than enough for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject has a very common name, which makes him difficult to Google, but as far as I can tell all of the sources cited are indeed referring to the same person. Per David Eppstein, the subject does appear to be notable. Furthermore, I haven't found any problems with the article's tone nor any implication that it might be a vanity article. It looks to me like a straightforward biographical article. I am not sure why this article was nominated for deletion in the first place. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Certainly the same individual, see, a cite that was in the article when this absurd nomination was made.TheLongTone (talk) 11:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on the Tate and Venice shows. (Devereux1978) — Preceding undated comment added 09:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Notable artist - this debate should not have happened...Modernist (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep -- Venice biennale and Tate retrospective are top of the field awards. Suggest nominator withdraws. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 11:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In fairness to the nominator, the clear claims to notability were not in the article when it was nominated, and my comment about the Google search at the top of this discussion is mistaken: I was searching using "Richard Smith painter" rather than "Richard Smith Artist", which indeed does give priority to an apparantly non-notable New Zealand artist. However, at the time of the nomination the article was well enough cited to establish notability.TheLongTone (talk) 11:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, well said, u|TheLongTone. When the article improves, that should be noted in keep comments, in deference to the good faith effort by the nominator. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Surely an artist whose work is bought by the Tate and Metopolitan Museum must be notable. It might be diffenret if he had merely exibited work in a gallery.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2014 (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.