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. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rasmus Mogensen

[edit]

[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)

No significant coverage found. No major gallery showings found (all appear to be relatively small galleries with no independent coverage of exhibitions). He is listed on a marketing team for a single campaign that won an Epica Award, meaning he may meet a single criterion of WP:ANYBIO. These awards are unfamiliar to me, but several other agencies and individuals who have received them do not have their own articles. Since the article has been tagged for sourcing and notability issues for so long with minimal improvements, I'm initiating a deletion discussion as recommended in the "Additional criteria" section of WP:BIO. There is relevant previous discussion on the article's talk page, but it operates under dated criteria for WP:ARTIST. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete present form looks more like a promotion/ ads unless more independent and substantial material is added. 10 years since creation of page should be sufficient time for that to happen. PenulisHantu (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: When I visited Worldcat to see if it knew of any book of his stuff, I didn't see any; but I did find that MoFA Houston has material by him: OCLC 1089319471. I don't understand what it is, and I wonder about its significance. -- Hoary (talk) 09:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so a few more experienced editors can weigh on regarding the artists significance. They might have works in major collections. Can someone please spend time to investigate? Thanks everyone for your participation and for assuming good faith!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Le Book 2007 reference, I believe, is nothing more than self promo for the creative world, Instagram in paper form if you like. No other WP:SIGCOV. Mattg82 (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:SNOW. Clearly fails general notability as well as artistic. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2020 (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.