Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathew Cerletty

:{{la|Mathew Cerletty}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mathew_Cerletty Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Mathew Cerletty}})

It appears that Mr Cerletty is cetainly an accomplished artist, with any number of shows in any number of galleries.

The issue here is whether Mr Cerletty meets the "WP:ARTIST" criteria.

It would appear from a simple google search that the article fails any or all of those criteria:

• The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
• The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
• The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
• The person's work (or works) either
• (a) has become a significant monument,
• (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition,
• (c) has won significant critical attention, or
• (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

I note that this article has been "WP:G7" deleted a number of times. I think it needs a discussion like this. Shirt58 (talk) 11:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

REPLY

Mathew Cerletty is a regarded as an important artist in his generation. His work is included in the permanent collection of the Whitney Museum of American Art and he has been featured and reviewed in major international papers and magazines as The New York Times, Frieze, Art In America, Interview Magazine, Artforum and Vanity Fair among others. He is widely cited by peers, proof of that being his current inclusion in a major figuration show at the Whitney Museum. Augustegevaert — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augustegevaert (talk • contribs) 11:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 12:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment {{tq|the article fails any or all of those criteria}} The article doesn't have to meet all those criteria. Per WP:BIO People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. It appears that Cerletti meets at least some of the criteria; The Whitney Museum owns one of his works{{cite web |title=Studio Visit: Mathew Cerletty {{!}} Whitney Museum of American Art |url= http://whitney.org/Events/MathewCerlettyStudioVisit |website=whitney.org |accessdate=21 January 2016}}, and his work has been reviewed by the New York Times{{cite web|last1=Johnson|first1=Ken|title=Mathew Cerletty at Algus Greenspon|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/arts/design/mathew-cerletty-at-algus-greenspon.html?_r=0|website=The New York Times|date=29 November 2011}}.

{{reflist-talk}}

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Keep per sources provided by Mduvekot. Pburka (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Keep As a notable museum owns one of his works and his work has been reviewed in RS(NYTimes), I think WP:GNG has been passedAtlantic306 (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
• Keep perhaps for now as because we now have at least something confirming those exhibitions, some coverage is at least found. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.