Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genetic Zoo

:{{la|Genetic Zoo}} ([{{fullurl:Genetic Zoo|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genetic Zoo}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

:({{find sources|Genetic Zoo}})

non-notable artist: series of paintings shown in one exhibition, in the artist's own studio, fails notability. Articles mentioned are local Plymouth press. Deadchildstar (talk) 04:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Deadchildstar (talk) 05:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

*Delete. The artist's notability is debatable (and under discussion), his self-sponsored exhibition is definitely not notable. Local papers will print any local news. Wider sources are needed, but are unlikely to be found. McMarcoP (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Tyrenius's point makes sense. Changing my opinion to merge to Lee Woods and let it follow the artist's page's destiny. McMarcoP (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Merge to Lee Woods. There are wider sources per Associated Press syndicated material to e.g. The Washington Post. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Woods. But we certainly don't need an article on the artist and also on this work. Ty 11:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Changing to Delete, unless worthwhile sources are demonstrated. Ty 23:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to main article - Lee Woods...Modernist (talk) 13:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Change per below - Lee Woods...Modernist (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not saying to delete or keep this article, yet. But the suggestions to Merge are premature as there is an older AfD continuing for the other article. What if consensus emerges to merge this article to Lee Woods, but that article is deleted per the other discussion? I believe that would result in the deletion of both articles, so keep that in mind when making your suggestions. -- Atama^chat 16:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2009 (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.