Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Martin (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 keep. (nomination withdrawn) - Reviewing the comments and policy based opinions, it's clear that the consensus at this time is keep. (non-admin closure) Ceethekreator (talk) 09:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Simon Martin (artist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced for more than 12 years the Tate website page is only a mirror of this and I can't see much in depth independent coverage anywhere else Theroadislong (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator Happy for someone else to close this. Theroadislong (talk) 07:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:ARTIST and has no references. Syndicater (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If you search for references, you can sometimes find them. See the article now.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Sources are very likely to exist. I added some in under a minute. Having work in the collection of the Tate is hardly a "massive fail" of WP:ARTIST. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vexations (talk • contribs)
 * Keep. Theroadislong, this ignores WP:BEFORE and also WP:ARTIST. New York Times reviewer Roberta Smith called Martin's show in NY "a minor masterpiece of poetic discretion." He is in the permanent collection of the Tate museum and the Dallas Museum of Fine Arts. He is very plainly notable, and excellent sources exist. If you did not "see much in depth independent coverage" previously, check the article now as Vexations and I have found and added many sources to it. The nomination for deletion is therefore incorrect.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The article now contains 23 sources, so now would be the item to withdraw the nomination.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2019 (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.