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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 20:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC) reply

John R. Math (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. References are lacking and the majority are for exhibits at a gallery he supports. Fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. reddogsix ( talk) 16:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Sources do not demonstrate coverage in independent reliable sources, and I don't see anything else online that would indicate such. Google results are mostly social media, official websites, and articles written by the subject himself. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 19:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• No, it's a bit worse than what the nomination says. Most of the references are from his own gallery. So the notability claimed for him is largely the notability claimed by him. Delete (though I'll change my mind if somebody can come up with entirely different, and good, evidence for notability). -- Hoary ( talk) 23:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete Clearly fails WP:CREATIVE. No works in any collection, no exhibitions, etc ... Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 12:07, 14 March 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.