Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Risa Horowitz

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 The result of this nomination was Speedy keep. Kudos to all, especially Mduvekot and Mary Mark Ockerbloom, for substantially improving this article and adding independent citations during the AfD, making this a clear decision. Since the early revisions have been hidden, I will note for the benefit of non-admins that the initial article was extensive, with no independent citations, and was identified as a copyright violation. -Pete (talk) 01:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Risa Horowitz

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

No evidence of notability. —swpb^T 16:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 16:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 16:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 16:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced fan-page with no claim of notability. Agricola44 (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No actual claim of notability per WP:CREATIVE — this basically amounts to "artist who exists, the end" — and no reliable source coverage cited. Bearcat (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete -- associate professor of art with some substantial awards and exhibitions -- probably a bit WP:TOOSOON -- in a few years will probably need a full AfD discussion again if recreated. And after removing the copyright violation, per Bearcat, there's no claim of notability left in the article. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither GNG or Prof achieved. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of sources to support notability, it just takes some effort to find them all. I've started to add some, and I've nowhere near exhausted the sources. I would like to point out how demoralizing nominations like there are to new editors and projects like Art+Feminism, and I wonder if deleting is really the best we can do. Is it really not possible to improve articles like these? I'm referring to WP:AFD, which reminds us to consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted. Mduvekot (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that inadequate articles by new editors should be kept just because the editors are new? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Of course I'm not suggesting that lack of experience is a valid reason for keeping an article. I was referring to WP:AfD. I do think that with this nomination the nominator and the supporters of deletion have not done their due diligence and ignored WP:Before.Mduvekot (talk) 12:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Most of what you've added are not sources in the WP:RS sense, but would rather be classified as "external links", i.e. they're mostly web pages of commercial or non-prof organizations. One appears to be from her own institution (not independent) and the "Hunter Charitable Foundation Artist Award" is an obscure award. BTW, one is even a dead link. None of what you posted indicates that the subject is anything more than "the average professor". Agricola44 (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please identify the dead link? I don't see it. Mduvekot (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that articles from new editors should be deleted because they are written by new editors? If the goal is to keep new editors from coming to Wikipedia, deleting everything before it gets a chance to be improved is, of course, a well-planned approach. Some people might try improving an article instead of deleting but evidently, everyone does not think the same way. --Oop (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article, along with many others on seemingly non-notable individuals, seems to trace back to Regina Art & Feminism Meet-up. All articles listed there should probably be examined. Agricola44 (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Amen, per [1]. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically you guys target an editathon, nominating all the articles for deletion and then using that very nomination as an argument for deletion? As trolling goes, a bit tautological, but innovative. --Oop (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. She is a respected Canadian artist with a solid track record of projects and exhibitions across Canada whose work has been shown at Canada House in London, England. The Queen of England even attended the unveiling. That said, I agree that the article is not in great shape at this point, and needs improvement, and I'm willing to put some time and effort into that. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 13:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources indicate that she is a well-established artist. Gamaliel (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clear keep substantial reviews of works, to demonstrate relative notability. Needs improvement, but good enough, Sadads (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Living artists are notoriously hard to source out for notability and allowances should be made for insufficiencies inherent in the available source material. Based upon an extensive exhibition career, accentuated by substantive coverage in available sources, such as "Creating Spaces: Net Art in the 'Real World,'" by Michelle Kasprzak (see footnotes) this subject seems to narrowly meet muster for inclusion. Carrite (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite and my own experience with articles about contemporary visual artists. Daniel Case (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --ChristopheT (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasons based on policy? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

keep: Sources in article seem adequate to indicate notability.--98.69.237.118 (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)— 98.69.237.118 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:21, 13 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.