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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David C. Stairs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

GNG Fail. The claims of being in museum collections all failed verification. A search (web, books, news) found no SIGCOV. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the first nine refs in the article might contribute to notability. Was the nominator able to find any of them? Mccapra (talk) 12:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Mccapra, I think your quesiton is answered in the nomination. Additionally, the editor who appears to be the article subject (see next !vote) has now changed the museum collections claims into library collections claims. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article is carefully put together (Redacted). I did have a look at references #1 through #9, and a few were available for view on Google Books. They appeared as a design contribution, a brief mention, and a self-penned piece on his project Designers Without Borders, none of which provide WP:SIGCOV. Curiocurio (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment References to museum collections were not dishonest, just not specific enough. A museum’s library is still part of its collections, particularly where “artists' books” are concerned. Verifiable links to both the Smithsonian and the Museum of Modern Art New York library collections are searchable, and should not be disparaged. Other collections that could not be verified, such as Brooklyn, were deleted. ElzzeWellze (talk) 11:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been asked but have not answered directly: are you the article subject?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I initiated the article. I misunderstood it as being “discouraged”, but not “disallowed.” ElzzeWellze (talk) 1:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, I read that as you are the article subject. We have rules on this, it is desstrutive to the neutrality of the encyclopedia.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have a problem with claims like One of the titles, “Boundless,” has been the subject of numerous reviews and anthologies. There are no references to support numerous reviews, and the two anthologies do not have Boundless as their subject; it gets a few lines at most. There are many references to Stair's own work, but there isn't anything to show significant critical reception of his work. For example: a statement like His 2007 essay on Design Observer, “Why Design Won’t Save the World,” a critique of the Cooper-Hewitt Museum’s Design for the Other 90% exhibit, proved controversial. If this is so, I would expect to see a substantial number of articles written in response that can be cited to support the claim. I do not consider museum library holdings equivalent to collections that are exhibited for the purposes of meeting our notability criteria at WP:NARTIST. Vexations (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2019 (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.