Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Coombs

Dan Coombs

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This subject fails WP:GNG because he is not the topic of coverage by multiple reliable sources, and also fails WP:ARTIST because he has made no apparently significant contribution or impact to any genre, and he has not been a substantial part of any significant exhibition or gained a permanent place in any collection of a notable museum. Going through WP:BEFORE, I find coverage mostly like this (organizer and participant in nudes event — three showings total, no substantial coverage of Coombs), this (one of 34 in the Saatchi collection; no indication of critical importance of Saatchi, zero particular importance indicated for Coombs within this group), and this (the sole example of substantial coverage of Coombs by a reliable source). Note, one apparent source doesn't even mention Coombs, and another is published by Saatchi. Otherwise, this subject garners mostly passing mention in rather reliable sources and slightly more coverage in unreliable ones. Although not a reason to delete, the existence of this article might be explained in the edit history, which includes indicia of WP:OWN and very likely WP:COI. JFHJr (㊟) 17:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per comprehensive explanation by nom. Notability hasn't yet been established, and thus far relies on peripheral mention, references to commercial gallery publications and a single review in The Independent. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Agnostic I just saw this on the BLP Noticeboard and decided to try to shape it up. In the end, if the best I can do still fails WP:N, so be it. David in DC (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — While The FRED is a good source to show the exhibition of this person's works (WP:ARTIST, however not permanent), the gallery that chose to host his works is clearly also interested in promoting them, so I don't think the source is additive as far as "substantial coverage" because it isn't by an "unrelated party" (WP:BASIC). JFHJr (㊟) 18:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The commercial gallery link is not a reliable source for establishing notability--what would work would be such a link to a solo museum exhibition, or published commentary from museum directors or curators or notable scholars. Re: David in DC's comment: one never need explain the good work of legitimate research on behalf of a subject. Cheers, 99.136.254.88 (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That said, I don't see a review on Artnet [1] as constituting a reliable source. Here, too, we're still amassing one or two sentence mentions. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Safiel (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Yworo (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep OK, My agnosticism has faded. At least five published works of art criticism in two art periodicals in recent years. Three of wikinotable artists. I think his early career as a Brit Pack painter and Charles Saatchi-championed artist, and Paul Hasegawa-Overacker's artnet.com praise --- after all, how many artists can claim to be Paul Hasegawa-Overacker's second favorite YBA, at least for one exhibit? :) --- plus his work as an art critic, may scrape by on WP:GNG. Of course, there's also the possibility that I've developed Stockholm Syndrome. David in DC (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David, I'm leaning toward Stockholm ;). I've published dozens of essays on famous artists in respectable publications, but that alone won't make me notable as a writer. Now, I think Mr. Coombs is an excellent writer, but I don't yet see indications that the periodicals are particularly notable, nor that his writing has received notice elsewhere--merely publishing isn't enough. Nor is it clear that mention by Paul Hasegawa-Overacker on Artnet constitutes notability--I'd venture not. All of that strikes me as add-on to the main premise that requires support--notability as an artist--and thus far even the connection to Saatchi as one of dozens in the last wave of YBAs isn't terribly robust. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)'[reply]

Delete per nom. HereFord 23:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]