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. Hut 8.5 21:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Thomas (sculptor)[edit]

Jim Thomas (sculptor) (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)

BLP unsourced since 2006. Expanded by the subject of the article in 2011-2012, but still no sources provided. A cursory Google search turns up nothing in the way of independent sources. Bradv 21:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Worth noting the previous comments regarding notability by @Alansohn: on the article Talk page. AllyD (talk) 06:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: There is a page featuring several of the subject's public sculptures at one site here. I found nothing on Highbeam but a Google Books search brought several mentions, as would be expected of a subject working in public spaces. The best may be the Southwestern Art (1973) item, but it is only a snippet view. Overall, although criterion 4(b) may perhaps be arguable, these brief mentions do not seem sufficient for the WP:ARTIST criteria, but happy to revise if someone can identify some verifiable critical coverage. AllyD (talk) 07:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure I suspect he is notable, if only because some of his stuff is so large, but a quick google shows nothing much on preview. Johnbod (talk) 04:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep What is the issue? Whether or not he exists or is a sculptor? There seems to be evidence of both. If the discussion is about being notable then we are in very subjective area. The information in the article certainly makes him seem notable to me. One may, for example, come across a work of his, of which there seem to be multiple public examples, and seek more information. This article seems to have value in that example. Flipping the conversation, what harm is there in keeping this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.26.18 (talk) 00:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The editor above would do well to read arguments to avoid in a deletion discussion. Existence is not the issue. Notability is: WP:NOTE explains Wikipedia notability requirements. freshacconci talk to me 01:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We need something more than the subjects own website to source an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I had created this article because the material was added to an article about a different Jim Thomas. There are some credible claims of notability, but I don't see the sources in the article to support the claim, nor have I found anything meaningful in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2016 (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.