Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William 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   delete. G5 speedied by User:Moonriddengirl. Procedural close. Courcelles 01:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

William Smith (artist)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Subject does not meet WP:Artist notability guidelines. Was put for speedy and declined on the ground of having won a notable award. However this award was a Pew Fellowships in the Arts, which to be honest I can't see as being that notable. It's a local grant of money to help Philadelphia area artists. The artist has had a few exhibitions, but none of any noteworthy standing that I can tell. Other than the Pew award nothing else seems closely noteworthy. Note: If the Pew awards isn't enough to claim notability coming out of this, then there are many other articles that need looked at under the same claims. Canterbury Tail  talk  19:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * on the notability of Pew: "Philadelphia’s thriving arts and culture scene owes much of its vitality to the nurturing role played by local foundations. One of the brightest jewels in this financial constellation has been the Pew Fellowships in the Arts program, which has dispensed more than $12 million to 237 artists in a dozen or so disciplines since its inception in 1991. In terms of dollars (currently $60,000 per grant), there’s nothing else like it in Philadelphia and only one larger grant-giving program anywhere. More important, the Pew philosophy of giving grants directly to individual artists is a rare exception in today’s corporate-minded foundation world, with its preference for funding arts presenting organizations."  Accotink2  talk 19:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Certainly not yet notable. Johnbod (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2010 (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.