Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dana Levin (artist)


 * 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.  Sandstein  19:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Dana Levin (artist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

First of all there is a Dana Levin (poet) who generates lots of results in a search for sources. This Dana Levin does not seem to meet NARTIST. The sources are so poor that I am not sure if she meets GNG either. Items like the "Interview with Artist/Teacher Dana Levin" by Art Renewal Center are not RS as it is an interview and it is about a scholarship they gave her. Most other sources given are exhibition blurbs (not independent) or passing mentions. I could not find enough in a search to establish notability, although I could be wrong. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Not sure if this is a hoax, but the first four refs that I attempted to navigate to were no good.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Could find only two working sources in the article, one an art gallery profile and the other an alumni show. Neither are reliable sources. Also, nothing better from a Google search - actually found nothing at all. Fails WP:GNG. Curiocurio (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Linkrot is not a reason for deletion. I have added the archive URLs for the pages that could not be found, except one, that I marked as a dead link. Please review the sources. Tweaking a search to exclude the poet and require painter yields some results for me; https://fineartconnoisseur.com/2015/12/hidden-behind-reality/ for example. --Vexations (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That finaeartconnoisseur article is made up of single sentences about the artist, followed by long quotes of the artists. It is pretty close to an interview. I'm pretty sure it's paid promotion, as it ends with an explicit suggestion to visit danalevin.com, the sister site in the masthead is artmarketing.com, and the advertise with us page of the FAC site says they will assist with not just ads, but "tactical placements". So, it's not RS. Vexations you are usually spot on, bang on and exactly right, but I think not in this case. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't yet decided whether I think the sources can sustain an article. I am very suspicious of the wacky Art Renewal Center and their promotional efforts, and I dislike abusing Wikipedia for promotional purposes more than just about anyone. But I am a firm proponent of considering the sources (carefully). We should not delete an article because it has dead links and we should not casually dismiss the subject as "yields no results in a google search" when that is demonstrably not true. That the source I found in about ten seconds is not great may be true (although it appears to have the kind of editorial oversight we require from RSes), but it does proves that sources can be found. This is just due diligence, per WP:BEFORE. In stead of googling for  without quotes, try , for example. --Vexations (talk) 15:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I am aware of BEFORE and how to do a boolean search in Google. I did my due diligence, and as I point out in the nom, I searched not for the poet but for the artist with a search very similar to what you suggest. Where did you see me say "yields no results in a google search"? What I said is " I could not find enough in a search to establish notability," which I believe is still the case. The coverage is minor. Pinging for his thoughts using private art school exhibitions like the Florence Academy as sources. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I was referring to Also, nothing better from a Google search - actually found nothing at all at the top of this thread. --Vexations (talk) 21:37, 22 September 2018 (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.