Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Karave


 * 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 insufficient reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Despite hopes expressed by two editors that such sources might be added, none appeared to be forthcoming. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

David Karave

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A vanity biography that doesn't pass WP:BIO or notability. All but two of the sources are self referential, and I am left with no impression that this artist is encyclopedic at this point in time. Keegan talk 04:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I am the creator of this article, and I have to disagree that the article is at all "vanity" based. This is one of the first original articles I have written on wikipedia and I was very suprised to see it tagged for deletion before I had even completed the page. I am not a friend or family member of this artist. The artist in question has an impressive list of galleries where his work has been shown, including an appearance at the largest music & art festival in the US, of which only a very select few are chosen. He is well known in contemporary art and activism circles in Montreal and New York. I feel it would be a shame to delete the article. Footnotes have been diversified. --RoboticArtProf (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Seeing no determination yet so I would like to add that per wiki guidelines for WP:Bio if "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary." Under the category "unusual/interesting" this artist passes. Even a cursory examination of the artwork should belie the fact the art in question is unique and highly unusual. Also, per wiki guidelines an artist passes notability if "(B)The person's work has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition" : an invitation into the largest art and music festival in the U.S. (the Bonaroo festival) would be presumed to qualify. At this point I must advocate for a bad faith nomination. Also noting that if a person with a stated knowledge of the contemporary art world could make a determination, this would seem to be the most logical route.--RoboticArtProf (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep artist seems notable. But concerns about reliable sources. Also concerned with COI issues, if any, for User:RoboticArtProf. Please elaborate. Annette46 (talk) 08:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Wizardman  01:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, fails WP:BIO. A Google News Archive search returns no results. A Google search only returns only 150 results. None of the subject's films or projects appear to be notable. Five of the seven references come from blogs or the subject's own site. The Tampa Tribune reference is not on the web, but I doubt it would be sufficient to assert the subject's notability. This isn't a reliable source either. This is just a non-notable autobiography. Cunard (talk) 01:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The above comment does not reference official WP:BIO eligibility, nor does it respond to official guidelines for passing WP:BIO such as those that were quoted above. This biography is one of several arts editing contributions I have made. 1 blog was endnoted, that being a blog made by a prominent newspaper head editor. 2 endnotes from the artist site were made only to back up quotes made by the artist. www.sat.qc.ca is the official site for the most well regarded new media art center in Montreal. --RoboticArtProf (talk) 05:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with Cunard. As you are need to Wikipedia, Rob, you need to understand that this is how our AfD process works. Indeed, it does reference official WP:BIO eligibility as you need to have a lot of sources. Usually people check Google just to see how notable the subject is and if it's worth keeping or not. This is how we follow the guidelines. I would like to add that a lot of the references are written by him and there's a lot of unsourced information. The article appears to need cleanup and requires more references, if kept.  Lady   Galaxy  22:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. From the guidelines :  "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary." There can be no one that disagrees that this is an extremely unusual modern artwork. Guidelines specifically state that popularity, or number of google search results is not a valid reason for deletion. Also, per wiki guidelines an artist passes notability if "(B)The person's work has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition" : The Bonnaroo festival is the largest and most popular art festival in US history. Only 2 out of 7 quotes are from the artist's site, and only exist to back up direct quotes from the artist within the wiki article. This artist has been attacked in the media for political reasons before and I just hope that this is not happening now. I research guidelines before writing all my articles to help ensure that that they are acceptable.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RoboticArtProf (talk • contribs) 23:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Even so, many editors use Google hits just as proof of how notable the subject is... even if it's the actual references that count.  Lady   Galaxy  02:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * delete - Non-notable, per Cunard. Weblinks to personal websites, blogs, and web-advertisements doesn't prove notability. They certainly don't show that the guy is an "important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors".--Celtus (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Appearance at major festivals is rather notable, but sources should be diversified. External reviews of his work (postive or negative) would alleviate any doubt about notability. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Amire80. Article, when wikified and diversified, will be okay, I think. Bob Amnertiopsis ∴ChatMe! 02:53, 30 August 2008 (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.