Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt O'dell

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. Kurykh (talk) 02:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Matt O'dell

Matt O'dell (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)

Speedy deletion request was rejected a couple of years ago. I can't find anything of any substance online about this artist, active during the 21st century. In my opinion, taking part in the New Contemporaries doesn't in itself help O'Dell pass WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE criteria. Time for article to go. Sionk (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• Delete: A WP:SPA biographical article on a subject whose main coverage is brief mentions relating to a couple of early-career group shows. I added the Saatchi profile page as an EL, and it shows a continuing CV of exhibitions, as appropriate to a working artist, but neither these nor the retrievable coverage looks sufficient to meet the WP:ARTIST criteria of notability. AllyD (talk) 08:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
• Delete as literally nothing actually close for notability and substance here given there's not only no museum collections, but there's nothing else of equivalent, therefore there's nothing to suggest a better article. SwisterTwister talk 22:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

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.