Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eldzier Cortor


 * 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 ) 02:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Eldzier Cortor

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article reads like an essay; in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it was copied and pasted directly from somewhere else. Smells like plagiarism/copyvio to me (not to mention the BLP issues; the article seems to portray the subject in a rather negative light without providing inline citations for the more potentially-inflammatory statements). Stonemason89 (talk) 02:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment A search for sources clearly shows notability, and the article has many (badly made) inline citations to good sources. Most of the text does sounds like a copy and paste, though a search for a few individual sentences couldn't find any copyvios. First Light (talk)
 * Delete - Copyvio from Dondegroovily (talk) 06:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The article needs a lot of work, but the subject is notable:  .--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made some substantial changes to the article. Even in it's previous state one of the categories is Guggenheim Fellows, enough to suggest an article in need of improvement not deletion.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment A lot of the copyvio question and need for rewrite remains, although the adding of sources is a major improvement. Given that the article was written in 2007, by a long-time editor who writes his own original prose, I think it's more likely that this was drawn word-for-word from the Wikipedia text.  Mandsford 20:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The long essay referred to by the nom wasn't added by the original author, but by a user with only three edits, all to this one article . That's now been trimmed down to sourced statements. I can't see the copyvio problem. It's just mirrors. The subject is represented in museum collections, has had at least one solo show in a museum, was awarded a Guggenheim fellowship, and is the subject of numerous profiles in surveys of African-American art. His papers are held by the Smithsonian. He passes WP:ARTIST by a wide margin. Is there something I'm not getting? --Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. In its current condition, this obviously shows notability and is very well-referenced. Congrats - it obviously took some work. First Light (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 22:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

I nominated this article for rescue because, while this article is about a notable person (There are over 20 references, and about half are books), the information in the article isn't sufficient. This article needs to be edited to include more information from the references listed. This might establish notability better. Matthewrbowker (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The work of this artist is worth a place in Wikipedia. This also means that the artist deserves a mention in Wikipedia. Is it really that difficult to rewrite this article to conform to WP guidelines? -- JHvW  (talk)   02:13, 20 September 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.