Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Betti-Sue Hertz


 * 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. (non-admin closure) &mdash;  Yash! (Y) 03:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Betti-Sue Hertz

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Apparently non-notable curator; she has done what curators do (curate exhibitions, write some stuff about them), but where is the in-depth coverage of her work in substantial independent publications. Her highest Scholar cites seem to be 4. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep the "in-depth coverage of her work in substantial independent publications" that Nom requests is on the first page of a google news search of her name, at the San Francisco Chronicle,here and ArtDaily,here  right where you would expect it to be.  Curator of significant art center. Lots of coverage of exhibits she brought in to Yerba Buena.   Curators are people who begin careers as scholars, then segue into administration where they are properly judged not by citations of their often brief scholarly careers, but by their success in bringing in viewers, and improving the institutions reputation and funding. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Weak Keep While the article is in pretty bad shape right now, the person may be notable. I went through the list of references, and many offer only a passing mention of the subject, but I believe there are enough sources with non-trivial coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Pishcal  — ♣ 15:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - As noted above, many of the references are not great (e.g., quoting the subject once and not suggesting any notability) but there are 3 or 4 that appear to be sufficient to show WP:GNG notability. I removed several references that do not mention, and do not tend to prove anything regarding, the subject.--Rpclod (talk) 01:01, 9 May 2015 (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.