Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitchell Merling

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. Mojo Hand (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Merling (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)

Save for being the "Paul Mellon Curator", there's no claim of notability. Citations 7 through 14 (the back half of the article) aren't about Merling, at all so they're pointless. This is another of Mitzi.humphrey's probably COI articles, and she conflated the art on display with Merling, personally. The front half of the article is sourced to the official postings from Merling's past employers none of which are independent. There's no case for GNG because of this. I did a WP:BEFORE search and from what I found (some results were paywalled) the subject is a mere mention. Nobody in the press is writing about the subject, so he's not notable in the definition of the word. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep there aren't full length articles on him. But Google news does give dozens of instances where his work as a curator is covered. Example, example, example, example, example, example, example. Being the Paul Mellon curator of the museum sounds a lot like a named chair under WP:ACADEMIC. The notability here is not proved out by extremely strong sourcing (hence weak in the k*ep), but the coverage is in the form of reviews of his work as curator, and does mention him directly. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Switching to Neutral so we can finish this up.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The news articles mentioned above do not indicate notability simply by doing his job. He is barely mentioned. I do wonder about WP:ACADEMIC but need more sourcing to prove this. --Micky (talk) 02:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. He seems to have been doing his job as curator very well, in that there's a lot of press about his exhibits but it's all about the art and not about his contributions to putting it together. I did find one review of one of his exhibit catalogues [1] but it's brief and states that the text is also brief, again leaving the art to speak for itself. There isn't the depth of coverage here for GNG notability, so we're left with a bare job title that might or might not be similar to a named professorial chair. I don't think that's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I didn't find the significant independent coverage of him that I believe is required to meet WP:GNG and I don't see any evidence of him meeting any SNG. I don't believe his curator job at a museum is equivalent to a named chair at a university. Papaursa (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2020 (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.