Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Novakov


 * 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. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 00:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Anna Novakov

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

does not meet WP:GNG (nominating on behalf of User:HarZim) SPattalk 21:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Minimal impact on citation indices. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC).
 * Keep -- citation in the NY Times as a significant authority plus tenured full professor at a school with a significant art history reputation is enough to keep. Citation indices are not important for art curators; importance of exhibitions (Andrea Zittel, for instance) is what is important. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. NYT is a good source, but what is concerning here is that other aspects that would help the case (exhibitions and such) are sourced with web ephemera or personal pages. For example, the sentence "Her writings on artists such as [many names here] has[sic] formed the basis for public art studies – an academic branch of art history and visual culture" is obviously notable, except that it is sourced by a document written by Novakov herself – it is therefore merely an unsubstantiated claim at the moment. There is other text having the same problem. I wonder if there are any actual WP:RS to substantiate these? I will look around a bit and reserve an opinion until later. Agricola44 (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC).
 * Yes, I agree, that it's problematic -- I hadn't had a chance to look too but, but her edited book of essays, "Essays on Women's Artistic and Cultural Contributions 1919-1939: Expanded Social Roles for the New Woman Following the First World War by Paula Birnbaum, Anna Novakov" has gotten quite favorable reviews in two important art journals. I only have access to one of them, unfortunately not the most prominent. Editing an anthology is a shaky point for notability, but she is singled out in that review for especially compelling and bold compilations.  She also has a number of other reviews on JSTOR.  It's not an overwhelming case, but I think with the NYTs it's enough. I also felt compelled to argue against Xxanthippe's invoking of citation indices again in a field where they're not used (what are the h-indexes of the top art curators, for comparison?) -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Another convention for academics' AfDs is that we don't weigh edited works the same as authored works – that is to say the former don't count for terribly much. (See e.g. this same argument David Eppstein just made at an AfD that closed last week.) I also don't think that tenure is critical here either. I will have time over the next day or two to look into this in detail. W.R.T. h-index, I see that thread has developed more over at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) – will try to add more there too. Thanks! Agricola44 (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC).


 * Keep. This is a close call for me, but I'd argue that the subject meets WP:PROF through criteria #7 (substantial impact outside academia in academic capacity) and #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). This is based on Michael Scott Cuthbert's arguments, plus the fact that the subject's edited book Veiled Histories, is currently in more than 200 major libraries worldwide according to WorldCat.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment: I was sorely tempted to close this as a keep, but although the current arguments are quite strong, this is admittedly a borderline case. As such, I'd like a bit more of a consensus to form. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. In checking a little more closely, it seems that Veiled Histories and quite a few of her other books are, in fact, edited works rather than authored works. I agree with David Eppstein's opinion made at a recent AfD that the former does not carry the same weight as the latter. As for the books she actually authored, they seem to have very low holdings, e.g. Anton Azbe's Art Academy. Likewise, I cannot find any acceptable WP:RS beyond the single NYT piece from 1998. In my opinion, this single source, taken with very weak holdings, don't demonstrate notability. Agricola44 (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC).
 * Agree with most of what you say here thought not the overall conclusion. My sense from reading dozens if not hundreds of reviews of edited volumes is that the citation of the level and quality of compilation here is significantly beyond what is singled out in most reviews. If only (sigh) we had the ability/time/money to bring in a group of high position art curators to help us understand better the sorts of things that distinguish a run-of-the-mill curator from someone who has made a significant (WP:GNG/WP:PROF/WP:CREATIVE) impact on the field. I suspect that our tools are very blunt here and the both Agricola44 and I are doing our best with very limited knowledge to sort it out. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 08:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. I reviewed WP:N (notability), WP:BLP, (living persons), and WP:BIO (notability of living persons); she came out just barely notable. One reason is per Eric Yurken. She has influenced the world around her enough to be on Wikipedia. Another reason is that she just plain wrote too many books. Searching her on Google Books, she wrote many works, including some where she collaborated with other authors. The only issue is independent sources, but other than that, this article ought to stay...for now. Mr. Guye (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.