Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Velasco (2nd nomination)


 * 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. The SandDoctor Talk 06:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

David Velasco
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Previously deleted in 2005. The article has returned, but it seems to be a primarily promotional piece. The sources cited do not show significant coverage in WP:RS - the Strategist reference is a shopping list, the ssense interview is a dependent source, and the Columbia Journalism Review is more about Artforum than Velasco. Relevant information about him could be merged into Artforum to the extent that it isn't already present; he seems to have no notability independent of the company. FalconK (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete an overly promotional article on a non-notable writer and editor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * FalconK notes that the page was deleted in 2005 when the writer had few articles published and was not an notable art publisher, writer, critic or editor-in-chief. Striking a balance for writer’s Wiki pages is challenging, I'll admit. Their pages have to show a list of original, notable, and historically influential written and commissioned pieces for major publications while not appearing to be promotional or written in a press release format. To combat this, I’ve added books the artist has published, written introductions, and co-edited as well as major pieces the editor has published in various magazines. FalconK makes a fair point about the Strategist and SSENSE interview; they are not completely objective pieces. The Columbia Journalism Review and the Vulture review, however, highlight the major shift David has had in both the art world and the magazine’s history, one that has published articles that have major life-altering consequences for the Sackler family and those suffering from opiate addiction, The Whitney Museum's murky affiliation with Safariland tycoon Warren Kanders, and more. I’ve added additional references and links to Velasco’s credibility as an influential writer, critic, and editor/publisher via the McNally Jackson book launch of David Wojnarowicz’s Weight of the Earth, a book of tapes by the artist the writer has helped transcribe and publish, The Walker Art Foundation’s background to Velasco’s research process to writing the Sarah Michelson monograph, various New York Times articles about the publication of Nan Goldin’s essay on opiate addiction and the Sackler scandal and Hannah Black’s essays on the failures and follies of the Whitney Museum. I’ve also cited various publications (MIT Press, Semiotex(e), NYT, ArtNet, Dazed Digital, and more). Let me know if there's anything else I can add or edit to complete this page as it seems like this guy has contributed something both notable and influential to the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frutti xperiment (talk • contribs) 22:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked for UPE. MER-C 11:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam. MER-C 11:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I strongly object to the characterization of the author as an undisclosed paid editor. As I have explained on their talk page, I am familiar with their work and have good reason to believe they edit in good faith. The other problem is that if we assert that someone paid the editor to write that article, we imply that either Artforum or Velasco himself paid to have this published. That they would do such a thing strains credulity. Vexations (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTINHERITED. Being an editor or publisher of ArtForum is not automatically notable. There's a lot of sources, but they are either in passing or self-referential. Not the worst I've seen. Bearian (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2021 (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.