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. ✗plicit 00:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kempson[edit]

Michael Kempson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable artist who fails to meet WP:GNG. The whole of the sources in the article are either closely affiliated with him (own website; profiles from institutions where he has worked/is employed..., an interview) or are not acceptable as reliable sources (blogs) or are rather trivial coverage (gallery listings) or non-coverage (links to other artists' websites)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning delete unless claims can be verified. Overly detailed article about an artist with mostly regional solo exhibitions, none in institutional/museum spaces, and a lot of group exhibitions/fairs. Few secondary WP:RS with SIGCOV. His CV claims dozens of works are in collections, but most of these are non notable, and too small to verify. Of the most prominent, I could only verify one of four, and it is the least significant: Museum of Contemporary Art, Bangkok, Thailand doesn't have its collection online. National Gallery of Australia, Canberra has three works in the collection for which he was the printer, but not the artist. [1] He is in the artbank, though unclear if this meets the standards. [2]. Not in the National Taiwan Museum of Fine Arts, Taipei [3] If it is to be kept, I think it needs a TNT. Theredproject (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This may be a difficult one to sort out, if the article and/or his CV lists works he printed (but did not create). Being a fabricator for other artists does not mean one inherits their notability. If the article kept, it will need a serious pruning of claims sourced to his website or galleries; or a TNT'ing might be best. He does have several works in the collection of the Art Gallery of New South Wales [4]. It is unclear if the ArtBank is a curated collection, or simply accepts artists donations. For an artist who has been practicing a long time, there seems to be an absence of press about his work. Perhaps he was better known as a teacher than an exhibitng artist? Netherzone (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - His own work (not just work he printed for other artists) is in the collection of the National Gallery of Art [5] - their collection search is buggy, I found this thru Google. That combined with the Art Gallery of New South Wales collection [6] means he passes WP:NARTIST with verifiable work held in several notable museum collections. The article needs an overhaul and would benefit by trimming excessive detail and unsourced/poorly material, but it should be kept. Netherzone (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That’s still only a database listing. The presumption of notability of NARTIST is overridden by the actual failure to meet GNG, and simply suggests that NARTIST, like so many SNGs, is too loose and needs tightening. If you can't find more than that, then this should still be deleted. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • RandomCanadian, He meets criteria #4 of WP:NARTIST. I've never heard of NARTIST being overridden, since it has a high (not a loose) bar for achievement. Could you point to that policy or guideline, please? Netherzone (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Netherzone Under the "Additional criteria" header (which NARTIST is part of), "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." Simply meeting the SNG criteria is not enough if there is not enough evidence that the subject actually meets WP:GNG. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

        I deepened the WP:BEFORE and found seven newspaper reviews on just the first few pages at Proquest, also found an ABC profile and a section of a book on Australian printmakers. These are not just name-checks, they are SIGCOV. This puts him over the bar of not only NARTIST but also GNG. -- Daily Telegraph:[7]; Newcastle Herald:[8]; Daily Times (Lahore):[9]; The Friday Times (Lahore)[10]; The Friday Times[11]; Pakistan Herald[12]; The Canberra Times[13]; ABC[14]; Section on him in this book: Australia Printmakers in the 1990s[15] -- Netherzone (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per evidence found by Netherzone. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Netherzone.4meter4 (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as his art is displayed in major galleries, and there are multiple reviews of his art.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2021 (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.