Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cameron Platter

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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Platter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No indication of significance and third party reference links Itsalleasy (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Article makes claims of significance, which is inaptly-applied CSD criteria not applicable here. Article contains links to substantial coverage in third-party reliable sources, so easily passes WP:GNG. Also passes WP:ARTIST #4 with exhibition at Museum of Modern Art --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment User:Enock4seth blanked most of article without good explanation (I don't know what "close paragraphing issues" are). This version has considerably more detail, including material from reviews. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restored to earlier version -- no explanation given for deleting good references.--Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of my edit all the refs I've removed were not valid via my browser, hence I removed and replaced them. Sorry if my contribution to prevent article from deletion was inappropriate. And I think we should keep this article. Thanks. →Enock4seth ^(talk) 16:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: per Eggishorn. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but needs fixing...Modernist (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Agree that it needs cleanup. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.