Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joan Melnick

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. The nomination and the delete votes are based on Wikipedia guidelines while the keep votes are not. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Melnick

Joan Melnick (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)

Sorry, but this person does not appear to be notable by our standards, showing no sign of meeting either WP:PROF or WP:ARTIST. Where is the independent in-depth coverage of her life and work? I couldn't find it; it certainly isn't a biography on the webpage of an online gallery which sells her prints. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I apologize and should have put in more solid information and write ups, as per her exhibitions before this was posted.. Would suggest that i have done that with notability established. Masterknighted (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per above, although the article needs work...Modernist (talk) 16:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:ARTIST there is need for multiple, reliable sources - supporting links and sourcing is at best vague, unreliable, and unremarkable in origin. Neither a Bachelor's nor a Master's degree substantiates notoriety. No national or notable exhibition participation substantiated. True peer review is unsupported. Nikto wha? 03:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - notability has been established through multiple reports of varied exhibtionsMasterknighted (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Joan Melnick has been widely exhibited in the USA and abroad. It's appropriate for info about her to be available on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigGuy (talk • contribs) 23:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I understand that argument for keeping is exhibition history. I couldn't find anything that may satisfy WP:ARTIST 4b criteria: has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition. I may be mistaken and open to be corrected, but now it's a delete. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable and worth keeping... Modernist (talk) 11:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC) Double vote struck through by me. Carrite (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As above - notable and worth keeping...Modernist (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- The exhibition in which the artist waa awarded and which was juried by among others Louise Nevelson and Sam Hunter is a notable exhibition and was covered in the pressMasterknighted (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the sources provided rise to the level of significant critical attention. Fails WP:ARTIST. Some sources are press releases or announcements of exhibitions, not critical reviews. No museum collections, or exhibits in public galleries. I can't find anything that shows that the Second Intercollegiate exhibition of student art is a notable exhibition. when looking at the references, I find that
  1. http://www.fitnyc.edu/interior-design/faculty.php is a primary source that shows that she is a member of the faculty. It does not, however, support the claim that she is an "internationally exhibited" artist.
  2. http://www.rogallery.com/Melnick_Joan/melnick-bio.html is a primary source, and not indenpendent
  3. http://www.nytimes.com/1978/04/23/archives/arts-and-leisure-guide-theater-of-special-interest-dance-week-funny.html?nytmobile=0 is an gallery listing, not a review that shows that her work was shown at the Hansen gallery, which is not a notable gallery.
  4. https://www.amazon.com/Coral-3/dp/B00XLYKX4A shows that a lithography by her is for sale on Amazon for $300, and some other prints by her. It does not support the claim that she exhibited in the Levitan gallery, which is also not a notable gallery.
  5. https://books.google.ca/books?id=5tICAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA32&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false is an announcemt in a gallery listing, not a review, that shows that she was in a group show with Elwood Howell at Hansen.
  6. https://books.google.com/books?id=Ml8WAQAAMAAJ is another gallery listing. Art Now was a gallery guide.
  7. http://www.norwalkpark.org/uploads/files/MaritimeSep12Exhibit.pdf is a press release that provides the quote for "vibrant coral structures through mixed media applications and compositions", which shows that this comment on her work is not from an independent, reliable source.
  8. http://www.lib.uiowa.edu/scua/msc/tomsc800/msc764/msc764-seriesii-galleryannouncements.html is a listing of gallery announcements collected by the uiowa, that mentions that Melnick was in a group show at Levitan gallery. That's a press release or gallery invitation.
  9. https://www.onekingslane.com/p/4419476-coral-2-by-joan-melnick is a blog by an affiliate (Melnick's rep, rogallery) of an interior design firm. That makes is a primary source.
  10. http://www.mutualart.com/Artwork/Swiss-Road/3B25868C53C4CE96 is an auction site that shows that one of her 1979 serigraphs came up at an auction in 2014. It has links to other works by Melnick that have also been at auction. While this is not one of the criteria directly in WP:ARTIST, I do think that this may be the closest thing to establishing notability.
  11. https://www.newspapers.com/image/86034217/ (non-free, but I did review it) looks like an actual review in the Kingston Daily Freeman, it shows a photo of Melnick with an intaglio print that won 3rd prize in the second Intercollegiate Exhibition of student art, but the article discusses the exhibition, the sponsoring fraternity, then catalogue, etc., but not the work of Melnick.
  12. http://www.thehour.com/news/article/Senses-of-SoNo-A-new-exhibit-at-Maritime-Parking-8193025.php is a review in a local newspaper of a group show with other non-notable artists at the South Norwalk Parking Authority. I think it is likely that Lake did not interview the curator to get the quote, but quoted the press release instead. In other words, this is a rehash of a press release, not a critical review.
The subject of this article fails WP:ARTIST in every way possible: The artist is not regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. Se is not is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. Se has not created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work, and her work has not been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Her work has not has become a significant monument, has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, has not won significant critical attention (it hasn't received any critical attention at all), and is not is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Mduvekot (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable resources and sources. Tenured professor at the Fashion Institute of Technology, renowned artist in multiple exhibits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgewienbarg (talk • contribs) 18:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I found evidence that she's been exhibiting since the late 1970s, but no actual in-depth coverage of her work in reliable independent sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment _ The Kingston newspaper review does talk about Melnick being awarded and the New York Times though it may be a listing it is not an advertisement and they would not have given notice to the gallery or tne artist if they did not deem them notableMasterknighted (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

masternighted, I'll reply on your talk page. Mduvekot (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sources too feeble to support notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Exibited at prominent galleries; seems at least as notable as a number of minor sportspersons who have WP articles.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that notability standards for sports people are abysmal, but this does not mean that those for artists should be so as well. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Other non-notable articles existing is considered to be an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. --Slashme (talk) 06:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This artist is clearly notable she has auction results and has been exhibited and written aboutBrainplanner (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does this satisfy WP:Artist? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete I am unable to find any significant coverage in reliable independent sources. This fails GNG for sure. Falling back on WP:PROF or WP:ARTIST I cannot see any reason the subject would satisfy it. I am particularly convinced by the explanation of Mduvekot above. In addition, none of the keep votes have actually provided any evidence that she is notable - and demonstrating notability requires verifiable evidence. I see none at the moment. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:29, 26 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joan_Melnick&oldid=1137951060"