Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Lind

:{{la|Peter Lind}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peter_Lind Stats])

:({{Find sources|Peter Lind}})

No indications that this artist meets WP:CREATIVE. Claims that he is represented in the collections of major museums cannot be verified. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Question - what exactly is it about about the [http://kunstdk.dk/information/billedkunstcenter Danish Agency for Culture] that makes you think they might falsify an artists' CV? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I do not assume that the Danish Agency for Culture would falsify this CV -- I presume only that they would publish the CV provided to them by the artist, which makes this not an independent source. The Danish Agency for Culture lists hundreds of artists on their website -- I doubt they have the time or inclination to verify all of the CVs submitted. Nor do I think that Lind would falsify his own CV, I just point out that reliable independent sources are generally sought for such information, and there is no listing of any works by Lind at several of the museums where he is said to be represented. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

:::Personally I would have thought that as a state funding agency they do very good diligence indeed, more than a commercial gallery. As regards non-hits on the two photo museums, [http://www.brandts.dk/en/component/search/?searchword=Lind&ordering=newest&searchphrase=all&limit=20 search at Brandts Museum of Photographic Art] doesn't pull up anything for Lind is because it is simply a website search not an index of all photographers represented. On the National Library he comes up, but not for his own photos but as [http://www.kb.dk/da/materialer/kulturarv/institutioner/Andre/Aistruparkivet.html publisher and digitaliser] of Inga Aistrup (1910-1990). But again, not being able to find his own photos isn't a reason to say "there is no listing of any works by Lind" In ictu oculi (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

::::*Weak Keep - would appear to pass WP:CREATIVE, even if his day job is a graphic designer. A great shame his Lego beer table design only has own website as a non-reliable source. http://www.peterlind.dk/lego/sofabord In ictu oculi (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• Keep — [http://kunstdk.dk/artist/peter_lind/texts/biography The Danish Agency for Culture] is a credible authority and we have no evidence that they don't fact-check what they publish. If this were a PR firm paid by Lind, they would be non-independent, but that is not the case. The Danish Agency's own reputation is at stake and we should presume they are diligent. The CV gives a sufficient number of galleries and museums to meet WP:CREATIVE. ([http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=987&dat=20070131&id=Mr48AAAAIBAJ&sjid=HPYFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1863,21460600 This] appears to be a different photographer named Peter Lind, also born around 1961.) --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• Question - Better with little than with poor reference ?

The article has been updating with more documentation : Publications and References to "Database of artworks in Danish state-owned and state-subsidised museums". This database is possible more misinforming than informing. The data has possible not been updater since 1991. Peter Lind are listed two times as two different people. Here : https://www.kulturarv.dk/kid/SoegKunstnerVaerker.do?kunstnerId=12915 and here again : https://www.kulturarv.dk/kid/SoegKunstnerVaerker.do?kunstnerId=14784 The entry from The Royal library only list a few of the Portrait they own by Peter Lind, and one with a wrong names.

Maybe it better to skip this poor References ? Even if the credibility of the article has been questioned ?

Museum inventory are known to be mystery, occasionally you hear about a museum who find a Da Vinci in their collection they had for centuries without knowing, or the contrary something they think they have, has got missing.

Eye witness reports from artist like in an interview are more reliable, they know what they shipped and if they got payed. Also photo documentation are underrated,

in wikipedia it's legitm to link to an external text, but not to an external photo.Fa bene si (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Question - ?

More documentation : Annual report The Danish Art Foundation 1996, including list of acquisitions, on page 27 : Peter Lind Uden titel 1996, foto på filmstrimler 24.275 (Price in DKK)

http://www.kunst.dk/fileadmin/_kunst2011/user_upload/Dokumenter/Kunstfonden/AArsberetninger/AArsberetning_1996.pdf

This external link should not been in the reference ? I haven't seen this kind detail documentation in any artikel ?

Fa bene si (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

---

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

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 10:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

---

---

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

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

---

---

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

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

---

• Keep, but the article needs attention as it has a promotional tone that should be dealt with. Deb (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2013 (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.