Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Hodges (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   no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 07:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thomas Hodges (artist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is about a banker turned photographer and questions have been raised about his notability for a long period. They remain unresolved and discussion with a representative(?) on the article's Talk page have failed to identify any further reliable news coverage, reviews or proof to support the article. I've edited many articles about creative professionals and this one, to me, looks a bit 'smoke and mirrors', based largely on CV's, online profiles and 'stuff on the internet'. There is proof of several nominations for photography awards (of unknown importance) but I'm not sure this is sufficient to meet WP:CREATIVE notability criteria. There is a claim to have work in the collection of the Shanghai University but I've been able to find any proof of this. Either way, his notability (or otherwise) needs resolving. Sionk (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that stated "I am one of his representatives" on my talk page.  Expoarts wants to improve the article, and has kindly provided many potential sources on my talk page and the article talk page.  I have tried several methods to get more eyeballs on the talk page, and so far Sionk has been the only one kind enough to offer assistance.   GoingBatty (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Note that Is simply prejudicial, as evidenced by what is written above. Hodges is a banker turned "artist", who works with the medium of photography (as well as other media). The artist has had several major shows, has just completed a new major body of work, and has just had a documentary film made about him.  writes above "discussion with a representative(?) on the article's Talk page have failed to identify any further reliable news coverage, reviews or proof to support the article". What nonsense is this editor talking? I have provided extensive information to assist in updating this artist's page, and notoriety was not in question prior to  tagging it as such. The question mark against "representative" is intended to indicate what exactly? Also, this editor's statement of 'smoke and mirrors' requires clarification, as the editor seems to have no understanding of the arts and by self-admission is not a professional in the arts. The editor is an incompetent who for whatever reason, seems intent on deleting (not improving!) a perfectly legitimate page. Expoarts (talk) 08:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hodges' notability was questioned in 2010 and the poor sourcing was questioned in 2012. You say you have a conflict of interest and your name suggests you are a gallery, so I assumed you must be a representive of the artist. Rather than personal insults, try and stick to finding proof about the claims in the article and, particularly, finding significant news coverage about him (a requirement to prove notability). P.S. I have not self-admitted I am "not a professional in the arts", not sure where you got that idea from. Sionk (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Weak Keep at a quick glance this article appears to be fairly well sourced. G S Palmer (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seems to have enough sources to be notable. LordFixit (talk) 08:35, 13 April 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.