Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Engel

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Engel

[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)

I do not see evidence for notability -- and the article seems to be in a promotional style, though that may not be deliberate. The NYT refis just an event listing in a local section, the others are event listings or local pr. The inclusion of the quote is unjustified promotionalism DGG ( talk ) 08:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find SIGCOV outside of (upstate?) NY. If you look at his CV, all of the activity seems to center around the Hudson/Woodstock area of NY. GNG and ARTIST fail.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatMontrealIP:Confused me at first also, but there are two Christopher Engel artists and you found the CV of the one that does abstract art. The one for this AfD does figurative. confusing that they both paint in the same region or area. This is the web site of the artist at AfD. Wm335td (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Lacks WP:SIGCOV as most citations are only event listings. Fails WP:ARTIST creative professionals criteria of significant critical attention and citation by professional peers. Blue Riband► 15:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG with multiple WP:RS. I started this article from the list of Wikipedia requested articles. There is enough WP:RS to justify keeping. I would submit: being well known in New York is certainly different than being well known in North Dakota. Wm335td (talk) 19:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG listing are local and I doubt their independence. Even if independent they are very local and niche. This isn't a question of being "well known" anywhere, it is a matter of the existence or lack of existence of RSs. In this case, a lack. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page is, to be blunt, suspicious. While East Hampton, New York is a major art destination, this person seems to have only a single solo exhibit outside of New York, and no work that I can verify in permanent collections of major museums. I'd change my !vote if you can find some good sources. There are literally zero Google newspaper sources, which would be expected of a contemporary artist. I want to stress that he claims that he has a print in the MoMA and Smithsonian Institution collections - but a search - and the another search could not verify those extraordinary claims, which would be required for a BLP. Six sources in the article are entirely local periodicals/websites; the seventh is a one-shot listing by the Times Long Island edition - that is not significant coverage by any stretch. He appears to have exhibited at the Carrie Haddad Gallery, Upstate New York's premier for profit art gallery twice, but I can't find any independent source to back that up. To be blunt again, the other galleries are run of the mill -- sorry, but who goes to Roxbury, New York to buy art? I'm not sure that group shows in the prestigious Woodstock, New York colony count for pushing someone over into notability. Bottom line is: this is spam. Bearian (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I looked at the other Christopher Engel, and there's no there there; this second artist has even less of a claim to notability. Bearian (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: Thanks for taking the time to thoroughly investigate the notability. I want to assure you that I have no connection whatsoever to the person in the article. I have been starting articles from the list of Wikipedia requested articles. My thoughts in starting this article were: artists are known for their work, and or style - rather than ability to generate controversy or negative press. I admit that the sourcing is not overwhelming for this artist. Also: I am sorry that we have all had to spend our time on this AfD. I will endeavor to start articles with better sourcing in the future. FYI: I did like this artists art much more than the abstract artist of the same name. However neither one is a Rembrandt. Wm335td (talk) 17:14, 6 September 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.