Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 March 21

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.

Jesse Waugh

Jesse Waugh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article of non-notable subject with really misleading claims and sources. Freewaves is not MOCA [23] (I got rid of that), and a short film screening at Freewaves certainly isn't enough to establish notability. His books are self published as "Carpophage Press" and cannot be used to establish notability. Carpophage is a company he directed; its only mention is on his resume: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jessewaugh "Carpophage Press" doesn't turn up any results in OneSearch. All its books are his [24] His own bio page [25] tries to elide the difference between having a book included in a library and being included in the permanent collection of that museum. They are not the same at all. And I'm not even getting into the claims that he has started a movement, when he is the only one following it. Theredproject (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I have yet to see proof that Waugh was a substantial part of any significant art exhibition and he is all over the internet with self promotions, and this person is not regarded as an important art figure or is widely cited by peers or successors, and he did not originate anything of value (ie. nobody else uses "pulchrism" as a term for a conceptual art style, therefore it is clearly not an art movement).
  talk) 22:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - Per my comments at the previous AfD and because nominator's rationale is invalid. Attempting to rewrite the article to support your attempts to delete it do not seem to be in good faith (Freewaves was held at the Museum, per the sources cited, please stop deleting accurately sourced content). The subject satisfies the GNG and
  WP:CREATIVE (as having exhibited at a major exhibition, as established at the prior AfD), and nothing has changed since then. The other comments about LinkedIn are irrelevant as LinkedIn has not been used as a source and the self-published books were not used to establish notability. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 00:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• keep Waugh satisfies the criteria at CREATIVE. Freewaves is the main experimental media arts festival in the western US. I don't see that the article makes the claim that Freewaves is the same as MOCA, it just says they hosted the main portion of the festival that year, which they did. That's a red herring, in any case. Night Ranger (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @
  WP:CREATIVE? If you can't answer these questions, it seems clear that the tacit consensus is keep. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The first AfD was predicated on 4(b) and 4(d). The discussion shows a significant dissensus about 4(b) that was
    WP:BLUDGEONed pretty heavily. I am also pointing out that 4(d) has no leg to stand on. And I disagree with the interpretation that a short film screening in Freewaves *alone* with *zero* other exhibitions of any legitimacy, rises to bar typically set at AfD for 4(b). I renom'd it because of this, and because I thought it was important for it to go through a peer-review with a different set of editors. Unfortunately one or two of the previous editors have been Canvassing, so we will get all of those !votes again, but I personally think it is more enlightening to hear from those that don't have a vested interest in the article, either as primary creators/editors, or having been on either side of the last Bludgeon fest.--Theredproject (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete - The references contain trivial references or are sourced from the subject's own website, which is inappropriate.
  WP:CREATIVE notability criteria are not met.--Rpclod (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • • 4(b) is unquestioningly satisfied.
      talk) 14:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]

4(b) is nowhere near satisfied by an artist who has had one video included in one show with over a hundred other artists. There's nothing significant about an artist who would appear to have had three (count em, 3) film screenings and four art exhibitions in his multi-decade art career. In other words he has a minor exhibition about every three years. Seven shows in twenty years is the definition of an amateur artist, not a notable artist. Even Sunday painters typically exhibit in the annual local show. ANd the sources, Have you noticed that they are terrible and mostly non-existent in terms of critical coverage? in other words, almost nobody has noticed his career. Having read the first AfD, where the comedic claim is made that his self-published book is in the permanent collections of several major museums, thereby satisfying WP:CREATIVE (ha), I am really at a loss as to why you and a couple of other editors are again pushing this clearly non-notable artist so hard. Is Waugh a friend of yours? I really do not get it. 104.163.147.121 (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails
  WP:CREATIVE - having a short video played at Freewaves does not amount to being "a substantial part of a significant exhibition". Freewaves may well count as a significant exhibition, but the requirement includes that his work must have been a substantial part of Freewaves, and that would require more than what we have here. - Bilby (talk) 05:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Not enough coverage in sources. Note that I was
  canvassed by Special:Contributions/81.44.32.50, who asked me to vote "keep". The person canvassed others in the same manner. Binksternet (talk) 07:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I see that this is considered "stealth canvassing", and some of the messages are partisan/bias on voting. Does anything happen as a result of this?
    talk) 19:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep He was a featured exhibit at
  talk) 13:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Just to check, where does it say his work was a featured exhibit, as opposed to a normal part of the exhibition? I haven't seen that before. - Bilby (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The opening exhibition was at MOCA that year, so those were the initial featured exhibits. Maybe "featured" isn't the right term? He was part of the opening exhibition.
      talk) 13:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Do we have a source for this? The only thing I've seen had his El Angel video as one of 12 videos screened in Program 04, which doesn't sound like that substantial a part of Freewaves. Is being one of 12 short films in the fourth video program a substantial part of of Freewaves as a whole? I wish they had an archive of the 1997 site - the best I can find is 1998, which had over 130 short films screened at the MOCA. - Bilby (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • By displaying at the MOCA portion of Freewaves, he is automatically considered a substantial part of the festival. The MOCA events are the highlight of the festival.
          talk) 14:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • The MOCA portion in 1998 involved over 130 videos screened over 11 days. I'm finding it hard to see how a single 2 minute short film out of (literally) hundreds of others screened at the MOCA is a "substantial part" of the festival. - Bilby (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • This was established at the prior deletion discussion.The quantity of films shown at the festival is irrelevant. The MOCA exhibit is the highlight of the festival. If El Angel had been part of the roadshow, that would be different.
              talk) 16:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
              ]
              • Sorry, I'm still not seeing it. In 1997, there was no roadshow. Freewaves had all of their screenings at the MOCA, and every short film was played there. Just being screened there did not make an short film a "substantial part" of the exhibition. - Bilby (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Bilby, in other words, he exhibited at one of the most important festivals (if not THE most important festival) in his field (experimental videography), at the MOCA. And was important enough to be mentioned in a book for his screening. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 00:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can read it that way if you like. However, I read it as "he appeared in an early version of Freewaves, in which his 2 minute video was one of about a hundred screened over the course of the festival at its single venue, and which garnered a brief mention in a single book which goes on to describe all of the videos that played in that session". I'm not denying that being in Freewaves was important for Waugh, or that it was not an honor to be selected, nor that the work was anything other than excellent. However, what we need to know is not "was it exhibited at a major exhibition", but "was it a substantial part of a major exhibition". All I've seen are claims that it was there - to be one of a hundred+ videos played at the venue doesn't make any single work a "substantial part" on its own, nor does having a two sentences in a book show that it was a substantial part of the event. - Bilby (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • You're mistaken about Freewaves. They did not "screen all films at a single venue". Freewaves that year also broadcast on KCET, cable channels, and public access channels. The list of videos you're referencing are the TOTAL shown at the festival that year, including the broadcasts. Not all of them were shown at the MOCA exhibit. Also, do you have a copy of The Sons and Daughter of Los book?
    talk) 15:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

They may have screened videos elsewhere, (possibly the same ones they screened at the MOCA), but based on what I have the list of films that screened at the MOCA in 1997 was around 100. We're talking about one two minute short film out of approximately 100 screened and describing it as a "substantial part" of Freewaves. That seems like a stretch. And yes, I have the book. Jesse Waugh is raised on page 181, where the author writes two sentences about El Angel. The author then discusses three other films. It shows that someone noted his film, but again it doesn't show that the short film was a substantial part of the festival.

Anyway, I don't want to keep badgering this, so I'll try to leave discussion for others. I just feel that all we've ever seen is that once, 21 years ago, Waugh had a short film appear as a small part of a significant festival. But

WP:CREATIVE needs more than that. Handwaving and saying "because it was one of 100 short films screened it must have been a substantial part" just doesn't seem to be enough. - Bilby (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I think Bilby's take on this is spot on. Screening of a two-minute video is fairly insignificant in the context of a festival where 100+ videos are screened. If the screening of this particular work had generated two or three cirtical articles abotu the work, the that would be something. However, it did not, and accordingly what we have here is a minor routine screening.104.163.147.121 (talk) 10:18, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The criterion for being kept a ta second afd is not that it was kept at a previous afd. We have the right to reconsider, and we can use it , provided a reasonable time has gone by--usually interpreted as 6 months. The criterion at any afd for a artist of the sort of works collected by museums is not appearing in a show in a major museum, but being accepted into the permanent collection, which for most museums is considerably more selective. The other half of the criterion--and is is undecided whether one needs to meet one or both, is thee being substantial 3rd party studies of the works. Writing a book that's in a museum's library is normally not enough. (There is a special case with the art form known as
  artist's books, which may be collected and located as a special collection in a museum library--I don't think that applies here. Being used as the cover of a book is not enough, but it does pose the need for further checking--and the book turns out to be a self-published comic novel [26] The next question is whether it meets the criterion for FILM, and just being shown as an experiemental film in two shows does not. For details there, I refer to Bilby
  's analysis.

The impression left here is of a not yet notable artist trying to sound established by including everything possible, even inclusion of the work in a student exhibition. That has a unmistakable tone of promotionalism , and that's another reason for rejection. DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the majority of this. Are you really accusing me of using Wikipedia for promotion? The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 00:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relax. If you wrote the entire article, you wrote something promotional, yes. Without a doubt it is very puffed up. However you are not a lesser person for it.104.163.147.121 (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete what a hype job! Any accomplishments here (which are largely hyped up non-accomplishments) are entirely routine. Showing at a single festival opening does not get you notability. The sourcing and the accomplishments are both routine. There is nothing exceptional here that would meet WP:CREATIVE or even WP:GNG.104.163.147.121 (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone block this vandal/troll? ---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to Closing admin The Master intentionally removed my vote and comments above, which I have restored. I have voted at 100s of AfDs and that has never happened. something funny going on here.104.163.147.121 (talk) 09:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You vandalized the article three times and then "voted" here as a thinly-veiled personal attack. Anyone who isn't an idiot can see what you're doing. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 16:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I vote at many AFDs. I agreed above with the respected DGG, that the article was promotional. The only person making personal attacks here is you. Please refrain from deleting the valid votes of editors.104.163.147.121 (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this puff piece. Guy (Help!) 16:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Subject does not come close to clearing the bar for notability as detailed in
  WP:ARTIST and as applied to other artist's bios in previous cases. I am thankful for the footwork other editors have done in the discussions above, but I do not find the arguments for the retention of the article, as presented in this and in the previous AfD, convincing. Marteau (talk) 06:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note to Closing admin User:Jessewaugh, the subject of the article, made and then deleted a series of ad-hominem attacks on myself and another editor. They are preserved in the edit history. Theredproject (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to Closing Admin: I am the subject of this article, and though I know it is frowned upon for me to post anything here, I want to state for the record that I believe that this is a politically motivated deletion. Both Michael Mandiberg AKA
  Jooojay, the primary supporter of this deletion, openly espouse and advocate for feminism - as is noted on their user pages. I believe that this creates a conflict of interest in their dealings with subject matter pertaining to males. Essentially, I believe they are biased. I also believe that they employ gang tactics as part of their attempt to purge Wikipedia of articles about men -- especially white men such as myself. I do not expect you to accept what I'm writing here, but I will be satisfied to know that it shall remain on the record for people to read when this colossally unjust witch hunt of anything male finally subsides, and people of both genders return to some modicum of sanity. Jessewaugh (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

What nonsense. Your biography is being deleted because you do not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. It's as simple as that. The notion that Wikipedia is trying to purge white men is ridiculous. Binksternet (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was just goign to say the same thing... This page is being deleted because the "artist" it covers has basically no notable achievements, as demonstrated by the lack of reliable sources covering such achievements. Unfortunately mailing copies of a self published book to the major museums and then boldly claiming it is in their permanent collection (false) is not included in WP:CREATIVE.104.163.147.121 (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You live in Oakland, so I think it’s safe to assume your political bias. If I don’t meet Wikipedia’s notability standards then how is this the second deletion nomination? And Theroadislong disagrees with you - here’s a quote they just wrote on my user page: “It appears to me that you are probably notable enough for an article.” You’re just another bandwagon leftist Binksternet - when they’re finished with me who do you think they’re coming after? You’re the wrong gender, buddy - also the wrong race - so it’s only a matter of time before they purge you too. Don’t come crying to me when they do.Jessewaugh (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to Theredproject: This whole kangaroo court we're suffering is you and your man-hating minions launching an ad-hominem attack against me for being a White male artist. You'll of course claim otherwise and try to gaslight me for stating the obvious, but we all know the truth: Your entire paradigm is failing, and like jackals, you feminazis gang up on any subject you perceive to have a weakness in your quest to purge Wikipedia of men. That and you're personally frustrated that your non-art gets exhibited but no recognition because it is meaningless, Michael Mandiberg. Let it be known that the previous sentence is no more a personal attack than is this whole Kafkaesque stoning of me. Notability no longer depends on your monopolized dinosaur media, and that's why Everipedia is soon going to eclipse Wikipedia and leave it as a relic - along with your petty, purposeless power. Jessewaugh (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Presumably, this will be deleted. Can whomever closes this please userfy it for me? In the event the subject obtains additional mainstream media coverage I want to be able to revise it. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 19:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, according to WorldCat (yes i know its not perfect but it is good as an indicator of the impact of a person's books), Waugh's books Jesse Waugh: Portrait of an Artist and His Strivings for Pulchrism held by 4 libraries, other books don't appear to be held (and here), also a gsearch ("jesse waugh book reviews"), brings up zero reviews in the 1st 10 pages of results. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Because I am a "white male" and dislike other white males. Maybe I don't like artists. Wait! My daughter is an artist so that can't be it. Maybe I just don't care for the comments by the apparent subject. Oh Lord, please don't tell me I am a "minion". It is possible that I looked at the article and references, also the Google thing, and agree with other delete !votes such as the nominator (that I do not know) that the article is a "Promotional article of non-notable subject". I have the opinion that the subject should have or keep an article on that Everipedia as apparently anything can be placed there. Otr500 (talk) 04:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable as per
  WP:CREATIVE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.44.32.50 (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC) — 81.44.32.50 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
  ]

note that the above account massively canvassed other editors104.163.147.121 (talk) 01:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There’s something fishy going on here. As stated by Justin (koavf) above, what has changed since the last vote? 2A00:23C4:2B0C:4700:1934:B5CF:8629:C204 (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)— 2A00:23C4:2B0C:4700:1934:B5CF:8629:C204 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment To the closing admin: The nominator canvassed DGG's vote (while simultaneously complaining about vote canvassing) [27]. It probably doesn't matter anymore, but if I'm going to be accused of spamming Wikipedia let's at least set the record straight here. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 00:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read up on Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification. You will see that what I did was 100% appropriate. Theredproject (talk) 01:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment His work is mentioned in a book. I wish I had access to the
  WP:GNG. I don't see any evidence that those sources are fake, and even without them, I think this person is just notable enough for an entry. Lonehexagon (talk) 03:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Please specify which work was part of which substantial exhibition. If you mean the video screening at Freewaves, one video in a hundred person show is not substantial. it's 1% of the show, or less.104.163.147.121 (talk) 03:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 17:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Per Bilby's substantial arguments and per GigglesnortHotel's empty arguments. --Calton | Talk 03:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • Delete, Salt, Do NOt Userfy. That would include attempts at end runs such as User:GigglesnortHotel/sandbox. --Calton | Talk 23:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This is actually the 3rd AfD. The first time around, the page was called Jesse R. Waugh, and it got deleted at AfD. The first Waugh article was also created by a sock-- here is the SPI, and it is worth noting that there were several sockpuppets voting there, using similar language as is used above. This article and its repeated AfD discussions are about the stinkiest piece of cheese that I have seen on the wiki. Or maybe I mean most duck-like. In any case, if the result is delete, I think some salt is in order, and probably an SPI, as the article subject seems hell bent on ensuring its inclusion. It's also on the French, Italian German, Chinese wikis, and so on. (Full list on his site says he is on these wikis, which I cannot be bothered to link: English, Français, Italiano, Deutsch, Español, 日本語, עברית, हिन्दी, العربية, Русский, 中文.) 104.163.147.121 (talk) 04:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified two delete !voters and two keep !voters from the original AFD that this discussion is ongoing, per

WP:APPNOTE.104.163.147.121 (talk) 04:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

In 2013 the result of the AfD discussion was delete and salt. One cannot help but notice the persistent recreation of this page, as well as the multiple sockpuppets at the first AfD.104.163.147.121 (talk) 04:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete When I nominated the first version of this article in 2013, Jesse R. Waugh was not notable by Wikipedia standards and I don't see anything that has changed since then. My recommendation to Jesse Waugh is that you are a good artist. Keep at it and some day, if you receive the level of recognition required here, an editor will create an article about you. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The subject comprehensively fails
  WP:ARTIST. DGG
  pretty much said it all. Nevertheless, I carefully went through all the references to make sure. Bear with me...

1. Own website bio
2. James, David E. (2003). The Sons and Daughters of Los. Temple University Press. The only potentially valid source for supporting notability. However, as was pointed out in
   WP:Artist
   : "The person's work (or works) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition." (my bolding). It comprehensively fails 4.a, 4.c and 4.d as well a criteria 1, 2, and 3.
3. "Each of These Men Has a Secret", Marie Claire article. According to the abstract the article "Details the challenge to a woman to discover the true personality of six persons through conversation in the United States." This does not constitute significant coverage of either the artist or his work. Update: scan of full article is here. Note that Waugh is simply refreed to as "Jesse".
4. Catalogue of a 2015 MA student exhibition at
   Brighton University
   . Student exhibitions, particularly when there has been no critical notice whatsoever taken of the artist, do not attest to notability. They simply verify that the subject was a student there.
5. The Amazon (Episode 1)". Access 360 World Heritage. National Geographic Channel. September 22, 2012 No link. I accessed this at the National Geographic website and there is no mention of either Waugh or his video footage [30]. See also [31]. Even if it were verifiable (which it is not) that some video footage he shot was used in an episode, this does not attest to his notability at all. Note that Waugh uploaded what purports to be a video clip from the episode here. His name is listed at the very end as one of 5 people/organizations who supplied "stock footage".
6. "Episode One". Rocket Science. BBC Two. 6 March 2009 No verification of this whatsoever on the BBC website. There is a brief BBC promotional clip on YouTube posted by Prismania (one of Waugh's companies). For a couple of seconds it shows children handling perfectly ordinary (not "artistic") prisms. This does not attest to notability at all, even if it were verifiable.
7. The copyright page of The Rise and Fall of the Trevor Whitney Gallery, an utterly non-notable novel self-published by its author Lauren Rabb). It is used to assert that "one of his paintings, a reworking of a Martin Johnson Heade painting", was used as the cover for the book. Well, so what? Particularly when you compare the paintings. They are virtually identical: Waugh and Heade. He simply copied Heade's work. Does not attest to notability at all.
8. 19th century source which has nothing to do with Waugh
9. Ditto
10. Description of Waugh's self-published book on his own website
11. Ditto
12. Luis Campos Baca (2003), Nanay – Instituto de Investigaciones de la Amazonia, Rhode Island: Brown University. Unverifiable and is masquerading as a "publication". It is not. Campos Baca doesn't even mention it in his CV. Nanay, described as an "Art film screening", was shown at a Brown University Watson Institute seminar because Campos Baca was a graduate student there at the time. Absolutely nothing has been written about this short film.
13. "2008 Pill Awards Broadcast". New York: ADD-TV. January 27, 2008. Unverifiable and not even a claim to having won one of the awards. No mention of him in this trailer. He was definitely not one of the "short film" nominees [32]. No critical notice taken whatsoever of the two shorts allegedly broadcast, El Angel and Hydrophobe.
14. Waugh, Jesse. "EXHIBITION". Documentary Film. This verifies nothing, let alone that he had a "solo exhibition" at the "Free Exhibition Not Prostitution Gallery". No critical notice has been taken of this whatsoever. More importantly, the WP article fails to mention that Waugh owned this defunct "gallery", see [33].
15. Poster uploaded by Waugh for the 2015 MA student exhibition (yet again)
16. "Unsere Künstler". Ingeborg Verlag.. Utterly non-notable German self-publishing and marketing company for books and postcards by "their artists". Not to be confused with Ingeborg Hanreich Verlag
17. "Brighton MA Exhibition 2015". Artelogical. July 5, 2015. Retrieved 21 April 2016. This is a blog by a fellow student on the 2015 MA. The mention consists of one sentence "Finally, if by the end of the exhibition you are feeling a little arted out, you could relax with Jesse Waugh’s relaxing film of Brighton sea, Beauty Sublime."
18. Flier for the 2015 MA student exhibition (yet again)

Despite extensive searching, I could find nothing better. Note: I was notified of this discussion as I had previously participated in the first AfD for Waugh. Voceditenore (talk) 13:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC) (Updated/corrected by Voceditenore (talk) 08:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete per Voceditenore's demolishment of the "sources"; what appears at first site to be a solid collection turns out to possess neither the
  WP:ANYBIO. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 13:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I seldom, if ever, !vote 'per X' but I think the claims to notability, or lack there of, have been well addressed by others. I could not find anything new to support notability. Jbh ^Talk 13:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep not sure why so much bloodlust here. Regardless, I am satisfied with the subject's notability, which has been adequately sourced. It really seems like some of the !votes here come with ulterior motives. 95.125.177.246 (talk) 14:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC) — 95.125.177.246 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete Notability not established, per Voceditenore's detailed review of sources. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. Sources do not establish that the subject has received significant critical attention, or that has work has been exhibited or collected by notable institutions.
  talk) 16:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. freshacconci (✉) 16:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]