Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reece Jones (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. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reece Jones (artist)

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

Contested prod. No evidence that he meets the requirements in WP:ARTIST such as "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers". Only claim to fame seems to be as one of the founders of a now defunct studio which does not in itself seem to be notable. andy (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Gene Morrison andy (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Significance is established as founder of Rockwell Gallery which is sited in numerous publications as important London space. http://www.therockwellproject.co.uk/Press.htm according to this WP: ARTIST criteria "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." (Rudolph Scholl (talk) 10:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)) The articles about the Rockwell Gallery are in major art magazines such at Art Review and in national publications in The Guardian, and the artist and gallery have been reviewed in multiple places. The term "defunct studio" is incorrect. Rockwell as you can see from the articles was a noted gallery space showing high profile artists such as James Jessop and Dan Coombs. (Rudolph Scholl (talk) 11:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while he may not meet the standards of WP:ARTIST there are sufficient refs to meet GNG. (GregJackP (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep per GregJackP.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient coverage to meet WP:N. Ty 14:04, 3 May 2010 (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.