Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas John Shillea


 * 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. Girth Summit  (blether) 14:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Thomas John Shillea

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Puffy biography of a photographer which has been entirely unsourced (asie from a Worldcat link to one of his books) since it was created in 2013, by an SPA whose username matches the name given as the wife of the subject. I considered stubifying it and adding some sources, but I'm only really seeing affiliated stuff and interviews in local press promoting exhibitions. Happy to withdraw if someone can dig up some decent sources. Girth Summit  (blether) 13:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Girth Summit  (blether)  13:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.  Girth Summit  (blether)  13:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  Girth Summit  (blether)  13:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep because he meets NARTIST 4(d) but probably TNT to remove the puffery. I added citations to two of the collections, there are half a dozen more listed in the page. Don't have time to do that now. Gotta run. Theredproject (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - A BEFORE search reveals that the subject of the article is in several notable museum collections, therefore meets WP:NARTIST (criteria 4) per: Portland Art Museum, Philadelphia Museum, Woodmere Art Museum , George Eastman House Museum , UT Harry Ransom Center . Also meets WP:GNG as in-depth independent coverage exists, for example:. The article is very promotional, more like one would expect to find on a personal website not an encyclopedia, and the apparent COI is troubling. It should be trimmed back to a stub. Netherzone (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Withdraw I'm persuaded by 's and 's arguments and the sources they found - I should have been more thorough. I agree that any content not supported by the sources we can find needs to be removed, which will likely result in it becoming a stub - I'll close this discussion so we can get on with that work. Cheers both. Girth Summit  (blether)  14:19, 12 April 2022 (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.