Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leslie Dick


 * 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The result was withdrawn

Leslie Dick

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable artist. She wrote some books, and also contributes to X-Tra Arts Quarterly, some sort of artist newsletter. She also collaborated with Martin Kersels. She is not regarded as an important figure, has not pioneered any new art styles, hasn't written any really good books, and also hasn't been significantly acclaimed, thereby failing WP:AUTHOR.

According to WP:NACADEMICS, she'd have to make a big contribution to her area of study, (hasn't happened), get a highly prestigious award (no awards), has to be an elected member of a highly prestigious organization (X-TRA Contemporary Art Quarterly doesn't really apply). X-TRA Contemporary Art Quarterly isn't a well respected academic journal. The only criteria I can think of is criteria 6 (which states that if the person was at a highest level at an institution that person is notable), although Leslie Dick is a program co-director, meaning that she is not the highest level at the institution of CalArts, rather a co-director of one of the programs, of which the program's actual director is Tom Leeser.

As well, the references provided don't significantly cover Leslie Dick, with the first and second sources (X-Tra arts and CalArts) being affiliated, and the third source being a recounting/story of an experience she had in the city once (primary source as well as presumably partially written by Leslie Dick). The fourth source is other author "reviews" of her book (no editorial control). The fifth and sixth sources are Kirkus reviews of her books, which may allow it to pass WP:BKCRIT if you have an extremely liberal interpretation of that policy. The WP:BKCRIT states however, there must be multiple, independent, reviews of the subject, of which some must be more of a plot summary. I only see Kirkus Reviews, and the first is only a glorified plot summary, and openly admits that it doesn't analyze it. The second book, "The Skull of Charlotte Corday", also only has this one Kirkus review.

The seventh source just states that she contributed to a book about another author. The eight source also falls very short, simply stating she collaborated with Martin Kersels, a kind of notable artist who is another co-director at CalArts. In the ninth source, it is simply a promotional piece for a museums exhibition of an experimental slideshow of some sort. The tenth source, Seven Days in the Art World, is quite literally a 3 paragraph interview with Leslie Dick, about the art world. Pretty much a quotation.

Taking the WP:NACADEMIC, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:AUTHOR notability criterions into account (of which Dick fails all of them), as well as the inability of the included sources to evidence the notability of Leslie Dick, combined with a lack of non affiliated sources about Leslie Dick, leads me to conclude that there is a lack of notability of Leslie Dick for the foreseeable future. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 05:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Since nomination, another source (7) has been added to the article. The source is a Washington Post review, and therefore would only effect the notability of the book it is reviewing. This also throws off the order of the sources in my AfD statement. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 05:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Two more publishers weekly reviews have been added, one (for the Kicking) is little more than a plot summary. The other one, however, has a little more depth, and is about The Skull of Charlotte Corday. I would still state that The Skull of Charlotte Corday is the only work by Dick that may be notable. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 05:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. A notable author and critic.  More sources have been added and the article now has links to substantive coverage of a number of her works in multiple reliable sources. And there are more in sources not freely available on the internet, such as reviews of her first book in the London Review of Books   and the American Book Review . --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * After major changes to the article (thanks, User:Arxiloxos), I am now fairly sure Dick is notable. Therefore, I withdraw my nomination.Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 12:36, 17 October 2014 (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.