Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Jepson


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 02:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Jepson

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Mr Jepson is without a doubt a well-known potter, so much so that at least one of his works is in the collection of the Smithsonian American Art Museum. It may be that an article for Mr Jepson may not meet general or specific criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. As always, more than happy to be proven wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I've tried hard to search but it's at best inconclusive. Google books gives results in magazines like Craft Horizons and Ceramics monthly, but they're not viewable online. There's a review of one of his DVDs in Video rating guide for libraries, Volume 5 from Lisa Forma, Rangeley Productions, AIMS Media, but again it's only snippet view.  Aside from that there's some stuff in websites like Ceramic Arts Daily which I'm not sure meets WP:RS and a few brief references. A thorough search of Florida newspapers might show more, but for useful info you'll have to go to print magazines. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Being in the permanent collection of the Smithsonian should be enough by itself, but we also need enough coverage in reliable sources to write an article, and that's very weak right now. I found some coverage of him in old local newspapers but most of it is not very in-depth:      . —David Eppstein (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep on the basis of what David E. found. We canpt write as good an article as we'd like, but since we can demonstrate what it is that he is notable for, it's sufficient.  DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 28 June 2012 (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.