Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sally Sheinman

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 no consensus. Was no consensus before and after the first relist, with no new input since. RL0919 (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Sheinman (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)

Only two citations for years, warning against WP:GNG for almost a year, content of article reeks of fluff. Not notable Edit: In particular, a little-known artist as mentioned. ~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 02:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update : Most of the references added since I made this are passing mentions of the subject, and the text is cursed with fluff and tangential information. Little to amend the GNG problems....--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 16:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Numerious references and clearly notable. It is not true to claim that the references added today are only 'passing mentions of the subject';- Sheinman, or her exhibitions, are clearly the main, or indeed the only, topic in almost all of the ten references now in the article. In addition, the article has been edited to remove anything that could possabily be considered 'fluff' or 'tangential'.14GTR (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Little-known artist with no significant coverage. Does not pass WP:GNG. May also be a case of COI. Skirts89 (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have found and added more references. 6 of the articles are specifically about her work. 5 are about her work and the work of other artists in group exhibitions. That meets WP:GNG, and perhaps WP:ARTIST #3 "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of .... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", though I am sure there would be different opinions about whether her work is "significant or well-known". RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the reasoning you provided, it seems more like your position would be "Weak Keep"? I contest that this artist is significant or well-knowm; the sources listed are so typical that thousands of more blatantly-irrelevant artists would get their own articles when they have not contributed anything of particular note.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 17:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete sorry but this artist does not meet "WP:ARTIST #3 "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work" at all! in order to have the body of work be well-known, there have to be lots of sources about it, in-depth. A bunch of event announcements, trivial mentions and non-independent sources indicate only something happened or was created by the artist, not that anyone came to the show, thought it was interesting, reviewed it in a reputable journal, wrote a book about it, presented it in a major ehibition or added it to a museum collection. If her work is well-known, why can't I find any decent writing about it? Be careful with WP:ARTIST, it is meant for real artists and not those who might end up with a Wiki page supported by passing mentions and trivial coverage.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I'm fairly neutral on this one. I see both sides, but I will say that we have certainly kept many articles that were much further from satisfying ARTIST #3. --Theredproject (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep sources currently in the article show sufficient coverage. feminist (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2019 (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.