Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Carpenter (artist)

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. per improvements made and sources IDed during this discussion Star Mississippi 02:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Carpenter (artist)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography unsourced for over 15 years. BD2412 T 22:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Oregon. Shellwood (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also a racecar driver with the same name. Taking out his citations, I find a few local mentions. He seems to have an art installation in a library, the first thing that comes up in Google Scholar. He's cited once in the Architectural Review, seems to be for the art installation. Might be notable but need to dig for sources. I find one mention (appears to be a chapter, but GBooks only has a snipet view) here: [1] Oaktree b (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Unless the Community Development Agency of Los Angeles website is a WP mirror, the entire BLP is a copyvio pasted from their website, as seen here. This has been reported to the copyright problems page. --Kbabej (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The writing style certainly seems more appropriate for a venue like that than for an encyclopedia article. BD2412 T 23:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Agreed! The writing style is not appropriate for WP. --Kbabej (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are no sources that show he meets our guidelines for artist notability. It also appears to be a misuse of Wikipedia to repost an advertisement.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pretty easy to find sources: [2] [3] [4]. A look at the list of commissions on his web site gives a hint as to where to find many more. Yes, the article, as it is, is pretty much useless AND is identical text to his web site. I'll try to make a few edits. Lamona (talk) 17:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've removed the copyvio, and documented a small number of his installations. There are many more to be added, but I'm confident that this is now a keeper. Lamona (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lamona: The copyvio still needed to be redacted from the edit history. I have done that now. BD2412 T 23:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has several documented public installations and also WP:HEY. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please judge based on improvements that have occurred since this nomination was posted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Documentaries itself enough to justify WP:GNG. Washington State Arts Commission's offcial website has the artist collection records [5]. Per me, this article needs a work and respective task force needs to know about this one. @@@XyX _talk 22:34, 4 April 2022 (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.