Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beatrice Catanzaro


 * 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 keep.  Sandstein  07:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Beatrice Catanzaro

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:ARTIST. Article is entirely promotional content that has been removed. sixty nine  • whaddya want? •  05:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment, in actual fact, all of the sourced content was removed, which is clearly the wrong way of going about things. I've restored the sourced information, some of which clearly had useful secondary citations. A decision at AfD should be made before the article is summarily killed. Sionk (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, on the basis of the sources already found and incorporated. Catanzaro suffers for being largely a collaborative artist and group participant, but the review (for example) by Artforum singles her out from 47 participating artists. Chances are there may be other sources in Italian, Hebrew or Arabic which will be more difficult to find. Sionk (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * the Artforum item is better than a passing mention, but it is still a very small paragraph.198.58.171.47 (talk) 05:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC) — 198.58.171.47 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Neutral I went through the current version and checked the references. I deleted two refs where her name did not even appear in the refs. To other refs were a little better and mentioned her work in basic, but not in-depth, detail. This is a bit borderline, and it is hard to see what is real and what is not based on the excessive COI autobiography editing by the article creator, who had the same page as his/her user page. This is right on the edge, I would be as happy to have it be deleted to have it kept.198.58.171.47 (talk) 05:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas3   (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas3   (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I've found more sources and added them. There is a lot of discussion about her work in reliable sources so I'm saying she passes CREATIVE. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per the great work done by Megalibrarygirl in finding in-depth sources on this person and their work. Sometimes you have to look at non-English sources. --Oakshade (talk) 06:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Megalibrarygirl and Oakshade. (Sionk & Megalibrarygirl: You have my admiration. I would find it very hard to respond as coolly as you have.) — Gpc62 (talk) 07:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I have some real concerns about this article, started by an infrequent editor with 50 edits who also started Land Art Mongolia, Hartslane (Articles for deletion/Hartslane (2nd nomination)), Gayle Chong Kwan, each of them poorly sourced, heavily templated  articles.  Land Art Mongolia appears to be the only article that links to Cantanzaro.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Exhibited at the Rome Quadriennale. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep –Article has been substantially improved to assert notability. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. The sources look more impressive than they are. For example, "http://next.liberation.fr" is a three-sentence mention within a very long general article;  "Artforum" is a one paragraph review., which of the sources you;ve added do you regard as substantial coverage.?    DGG ( talk ) 10:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a bit of a red herring to note there are some not-great sources when there are several that are in-depth like that of the Italian Artribune and Culturame which go very in-depth about her work and her --Oakshade (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Article is overstuffed with sources that are mere mentions, and with material sourced to the websites of small, non-notable organizations where she participated in a project - these should be removed as primary.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:35, 1 December 2017 (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.