Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Preston Likely

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. Star Mississippi 21:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Preston Likely

[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)

Fails WP:NARTIST known for one barely notable local event only. Theroadislong (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well-sourced. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not an artist with a a professional career, a body of work and works in museum collections who has received sustained coverage in scholarly journals by qualified professionals. Vexations (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the newspapers references are either local tabloid (Oxford Mail), free (Oxford Journal), or street (The Big Issue). These would be acceptable in moderation if there were also a few solid references to pass WP:GNG, but I'm not seeing it. Curiocurio (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've thought about this article and its associated AfD in depth over the past week, and my assessment is that it is WP:TOOSOON for this artist. From what I can ascertain from the sourcing and several WP:BEFORE searches is that this artist needs more time to develop their career before they might be notable enough for a WP article. Their work has been covered as "human interest" stories in several local news feeds, which is great, but it is not enough to meet the WP criteria for WP:NARTIST nor WP:GNG. Their projects sound interesting, quirky and fun, however they do not have, as presented above by Theroadislong, Vexations and Curiocurio a professional career as an artist, meaning exhibitions curated by independent professionals at museums or notable galleries; work included in the collections of notable museums; in-depth articles/essays by art historians or theoreticians in art magazines, art historical or academic journals or books; nor have they developed a new technique, process or procedure for making art (artists have been doing pop-up shows, organizing events, and making installations for many decades, and there needs to be secondary sources stating how and why his work breaks new ground). It seems like his events are a load of fun and are appreciated by the Hull community; however the artist needs more time to develop before they are ready for an encyclopedia article. Netherzone (talk) 22:10, 22 January 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.