Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Sepuya

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Sepuya (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)

Flagged previously for lacking notability; has not been improved upon since then. References go mostly to dead links, except for a couple primary sources. Appears promotional in nature. GetSomeUtah (talk) 09:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adequate references exist to establish notability. I really cannot help but notice that the nominator also proposed TWO other articles on black queer artists for deletion (Shari Carpenter and Lola Flash), wihtin an hour of this one.104.163.152.238 (talk) 06:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ARTIST lays out a 4 point test for evaluating the notability of photographers and other creative professionals. It reads:

Unless O'Doherty or Smyth details Paul Sepuya's importance or citations by his peers, I do not see evidence to support part 1. One of these sources would also need to be used to show a significant new concept or theory for a notability claim under part 2.

There is nothing here about a significant, well-known work co-created by Sepuya, so I cannot support a part 3 claim.

This leaves the options for part 4 of the guideline. If there was significant critical attention, I would expect to see evidence of that within the article. Currently there is none. I would also expect that a significant monument or exhibition would have coverage. The only museum that is independently shown to hold Sepuya's work in it's collection at this time based on the article is the Leslie-Lohman museum. Using the Yancey Richardson source for a listing of museums holding Sepuya's work is inadvisable as it is not independent (Yancey Richardson represents the subject, and thus has a vested interest in Sepuya being valuable). Checking the collections listed on that site against the museum's own websites, it appears only MoMA and it's Irish equivalent IMMA are actually in possession of Sepuya's work. 3 museums is hardly several. If more evidence can be brought to show notability, I would be open to changing my opinion, but there is not enough for me to support keeping currently. Hamtechperson 07:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks, this is good research. Three museums is indeed several. MOMA is widely recognized as one of the leading contemporary art museum in the world. Notability is clearly satisfied on the colelctions count. Saying someone is one only three museums... well, how many does one have to be in? The dictionary says "more than two" for several. And there we have more than two.104.163.152.238 (talk) 08:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A cursory search revealed a number of RS's: Vice.com, freundevonfreunden.com, thecreativeindependent.com, brooklynrail.org, etc. Notability is clearly established. Kleuske (talk) 11:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Meets GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Four works in MoMA [1] go a long way towards 4(d), and a solo exhibit at the KMAC Museum [2] goes a long way towards 4(b), in addition to the multiple reliably published pieces about his work (e.g. [3] [4]). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS Also in the permanent collection of the Museum of Contemporary Photography [5] and at the Fotomuseum Winterthur [6]. So 4(d) is now clear. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The evidence of holdings in museum collections described by several editors is enough to show notabilty. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:49, 11 October 2017 (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.