Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel Zohar


 * 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. ‑Scottywong | chat _ 16:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Israel Zohar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Somethoughtsaboutthings (talk) 08:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Meets criteria for deletion via notable for only one event. Reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a single event, the person is to remain, and likely remain, a low-profile individual, and the event for which there is coverage is not significant.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   18:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. no visible evidence of notability  DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. He's attracted mentions for other portraits, and was covered widely in the press when he created a second portrait of Princess Diana, imagining her as she would be at 52. This was the subject of one of the cited sources, but the sources weren't being used fully. I was able to add some biographical information as well as a couple of other portraits (but I removed the Middle Temple group portrait since I couldn't find an independent source for it). There is probably additional press coverage of his career offline; I also didn't use a Daily Mail article (here) or an Indonesian source dependent on the Daily Mail (here) both arising from the second Princess Diana portrait. With press coverage on two separate occasions plus several other works noted in reliable sources, I believe he squeaks by. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note - 'Probably additional coverage offline', is the same thing as no coverage at all. As far as I can discern, there is nothing notable about the artist and their works at all. The vast majority of the coverage in the press is related to the celebrity of Diana herself, not the artist. In addition, this coverage is only related to a single event. Even the more recent articles are just in reference to the original event in the 1990's when Zohar painted the portrait of Diana.  The only new source added to the article is that Zohar had a student, something which in itself is not very notable for an artist, and that he has painted other portraits, none of which (the portraits) have any sort of notoriety.  In addition, there's nothing to suggest that the artist's second portrait of Diana was, 'widely', covered in the press. Although, I suppose this depends on ones definition of widely.  Somethoughtsaboutthings (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have to point out that equating the possibility of offline coverage with no coverage at all is simply wrong. We are on the internet, but we accept offline sources. Moreover, The Times is now completely paywalled, and other UK newspapers are hard for me to access in search (I used to have a subscription to British Newspapers Archive through the Wikipedia Library but didn't renew it because it never seemed to have anything, even articles I'd seen in hard copy in the past) - so there may be online sources that someone else has access to. I presume you performed a WP:BEFORE search? If so, surely you noted that there are two portraits of Princess Diana? That was not reflected in the article, and yes, I would call the coverage of the second one wide - I added a Spanish newspaper, and notice above that I didn't add the Daily Mail or the Indonesian (!) website based on its report, since we no longer accept it as a citable source. Again, I'm sure there were other press reports on that, and far more than the one on the first portrait. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I do agree that equating the possibility of coverage to no coverage existing is not correct. A more fair assessment is that 'might be coverage' is not valuable when considering notoriety, since in fact there might also not be coverage. It's an empty statement and actual citations of the offline coverage are what is valuable. In terms of wide coverage, I would not consider one Spanish newspaer and the Daily Mail wide coverage (you mentioned yourself the Indonesian article is just a reference to the Daily Mall resource), but, as I mentioned earlier, I am not sure who is to decide what wide coverage is. In addition, the reason for the majority of this press is not the artist, but the subject, Princess Diana. It seems more appropriate for a subject like this to be a sub-section under Princess Diana regarding portraits of her. Somethoughtsaboutthings (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 22:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Article seems to have only made it onto Wikipedia due to creation by subjects son. Not sure if this matters, but, it would imply some bias. Somethoughtsaboutthings (talk)
 * Comment in response. That's assuming bad faith; I think you have a stronger argument for deletion if you stick to the notability point you made in your nomination. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment in response. The mention of the source of the Author of the article is related to the notability point, not another argument. That is to say, I think it is something to consider when determining if the subject should have an article on Wikipedia. The fact that the Diana portrait had existed for quite some time before the article was created by a relative might lend credence to the idea of the artist themselves not being notable, as one might imagine they would have had an article created by an independent source who was aware of their notoriety. This is of course not necessarily true, and the subject could have been notable, and no one saw it fit to make an article for them.  It would be in bad faith to assume that it was only created because of the relation, but I think it would also be short sighted to not consider the source of the creation of the article.  Somethoughtsaboutthings (talk)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947 (c)  22:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC) • Delete. Artist made a nice painting of Princess Diana, but does not seem to have any other coverage, museum shows, monographs,in-depth scholarly articles, or museum collections. To my way of thinking having a couple news releases is not enough to establish notability. Netherzone (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2017 (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.