Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Herbert (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   keep. NW ( Talk ) 18:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

David Herbert (artist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails WP:ARTIST, I believe. The topic is relatively hard to search for due to the quite common name. What I have found: He's an artist, and he's been part of exhibitions. Hmm. I couldn't find the significant coverage in reliable sources we're looking for. The topic's press page at http://www.davidherbert.com/press.html is thoroughly broken and refers to PDFs on his computer; trying to find them in search engines was largely fruitless, I've only found tagesspiegel.de which mentions the name of the topic, but nothing else. Tagged for notability since two years, orphaned, initial uploader blocked for disruption since 16 months. Amalthea 17:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That reads misleading, note that neither the disruption nor the block was directly related to this article! No comment yet regarding the massive overhaul done by Tyrenius. Amalthea  19:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong delete per nom, clearly not notable, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sources have now been added.  Ty  15:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Although seemingly widely, including internationally, exhibited I do not see any major shows/events, or any where they are the featured artist. The fact that the Saatchi Gallery link is unable to provide any articles or interviews leads me to conclude that the subject is not sufficiently notable (yet) for inclusion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (post improvement by Tyrenius) There still does not appear to be either the major exhibition or review by authoritative third party source, although the quantity of references now given has changed my !vote to a weak delete. Just one major review may change my inclination. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * His solo show Nostalgia for Infinity gets dedicated reviews in NY Art Beat and Time Out. The significance of the latter is that if there are 200 shows in a week, a quarter might be listed, of maybe which 20% are reviewed. Review space is very competitive and highly selective. It is also significant that when a group show is mentioned in sources, his contribution is one of those singled out. The references given are only those that could be found online; mainstream publications give minimal space to art, so the presence of his name in e.g. The New York Times indicates enough prominence for there to be more substantial coverage in print-only dedicated art journals. An image of his work opens the book The Shape of Things to Come: New Sculpture, but it's not searchable online for text.  The inclusion of his work in the Saatchi Gallery collection is a helpful factor towards notability in itself, as well as inclusion internationally in shows. Judged as a whole, he passes the bar. Deleting what is now a well-referenced article will lessen not improve the encyclopedia as an authoritative work.  Ty  01:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am going to think more upon this. One sentence from the NYT and a review from Time Out, which is an arts orientated listings publication rather than a critical review (although I take your points), would be excellent if there was one article or interview of the subject denoting that the artist, rather than the work, is notable that could be found. There is little more than a catalogue of the exhibitions the artist has been involved in - nothing substantial about the individual. For that reason, I am not striking or changing my !vote. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not "One sentence from the NYT and a review from Time Out": there are now 22 refs from the US, Holland, Germany and UK, cumulatively far exceeding the normal requirements for articles to be kept. Time Out has highly knowledgeable critical reviews of art from specialist writers. Wikipedia doesn't require coverage in critical reviews, just in reliable sources. The coverage he has had in mainstream sources gives far more prominence than coverage in specialist art publications. It makes no sense to say that the work is notable, but the person who made it isn't: an artist's notability is their work. The article is not just "a catalogue of the exhibitions": it describes specific artworks and gives critical responses/interpretations of them. This is what the reader needs to know—what work an artist does and what recognition through shows and collections it has achieved—and it is how most contemporary artists are covered. Compare: Julian Opie, Fiona Banner, Sarah Lucas, Simon Patterson, Douglas Gordon, etc etc. Those such as Tracey Emin and Damien Hirst with considerable coverage of their personalities and private lives are the exception, not the rule.  Ty  00:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep References now added and article rewritten throughout.  Ty  20:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep well referenced, seems encyclopedic now especially after Tyrenius's changes...Modernist (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per shows & reviews, which are good for a 32 year old. Johnbod (talk) 23:18, 29 March 2010 (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.