Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louisa Bertman


 * 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. L Faraone  05:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Louisa Bertman

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article reads like a fan site, largely due to a conflict of interest. The subject is probably notable enough to have an article, but it's best to delete this and start over. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * DELETE per koavf. Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * comment Additionally all the images are presumably in copyright, but are unploaded without ORTS tickets etc by User:Lbertman. I'm not actually that sure she is notable. Johnbod (talk) 02:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - and  demonstrate coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * comment That's a blog entry and a press release. There's not much more out there.  Her cousin wrote a blog entry about her, too....  I don't think there's enough significant, independent coverage to establish notability.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply - The first item is an article. That newspapers want to be hip to the whole internet thing and have their writers also contribute articles as "blogs" doesn't mean that it isn't an article.  The second is not a press release, but an event announcement so it is weak as a source.  There is other coverage however,, . - Whpq (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply Is wickedlocal.com a reliable source? Anyway, the complaint is not notability as such but conflict of interest and a pretty poorly-written article. It would have to be rewritten from scratch anyway to stay, so it makes sense to delete it now. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply - Conflict of interest is not a reason for deletion unless the article is irredeemable spam. The article isn't good, but it isn't so bad that it needs to be deleted and restarted from scratch in my opinion. -- Whpq (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * comment WP:BASIC is worth a read. "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.  If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability."  Neither this  nor this  have any depth.  The only article I would call substantial is this one, which is in the equivalent of a local newspaper. Logical Cowboy (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Well, I think we disagree on the degree of coverage that is needed to establosh notability. For me, that's enough, and for you, it's insufficient.  Some further opinions from other editors evaluating what we have so far would be good. -- Whpq (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 00:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Reluctant delete There are certainly more sources, but having a quick read of WP:ARTIST is not encouraging. It is my personal opinion that while she might meet WP:BASIC, she does not meet the more stringent criteria for professional artists. ManicSpider (talk) 01:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - If she meets the basic criteria, there is no need to check other criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply The exact wording is 'A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability.' (Bolding in original) I think that changes my opinion - but I'm going to go and have a more thorough read of WP:Basic before I go sticking my oar back in again! ^_^ ManicSpider (talk) 04:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * comment Well what it says under WP:BASIC is that someone is "presumed" notable. It doesn't mean she is notable.  Kind of like presumed innocent is not the same as innocent.  That is what the other criteria are for.  Anyway, I think this is a fail of WP:BASIC--there's only one in-depth source, and it's a local newspaper.  By that standard, we could add 100s of people to WP every day, just for appearing in the local paper.  BTW thanks for your edits on the article.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Weak keep but rewrite. She has a half-dozen significant mentions in the Boston Globe ; it's her hometown paper but still a reliable source, so she is notable. But the references listed at the article are not from reliable sources and the article mostly consists of unsourced puffery. The article needs a thorough rewrite, but I'm not inclined to do it. Any volunteers? Anyone want it userfied so they can work on it? --MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep is my vote, but No Consensus could be a valid close. The nom and ditto to delete have asserted WP:COI and fancruft, but given no examples that violate that rule. "When someone voluntarily discloses a conflict of interest, other editors should always assume the editor is trying to do the right thing-links to AGF-. Do not use a voluntarily disclosed conflict of interest as a weapon against the editor." Not only is giving no valid rationale invalid under WP:DEL, it is difficult for Keep voters to respond to; I cannot even begin to understand what they could possibly find that fits those two essays, but as it stands now, the only reply would be itself a bald assertion with no facts. Quite honestly, I can come to no other conclusion other than they simply DONTLIKE so much that they believe facts in favor of notability (a dozen celebrity subjects and a score of celebrity patrons) to be fancruft and COI. Furthermore, voters themselves have been prudent enough to classify their votes as not firm. This AfD might have been better to close No Consensus rather than relisting. WP:DEL and WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy" Anarchangel (talk) 11:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: My main concern is lack of notability. Which criterion of WP:ARTIST does the article meet?  I don't see drawing celebrities as being relevant to notability.  Brief blurbs on gallery openings are not significant coverage.  Of the articles found by MelanieN, the only in-depth one appears in wickedlocal, not the Boston Globe.  See above for further comments on notability.  WP:COI is secondary--perhaps this could be refined as WP:SPIP.  For more insight into WP:SPIP, see


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lbertman#Nomination_of_Louisa_Bertman_for_deletion


 * e.g., "My work is extremely valuable...."


 * Logical Cowboy (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:Artist Point 2: Notable and Verifiable Innovation. "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique." See the second, cited sentence in the article, 'She is known for her "untraditional portraitures of celebrities and personalities"', and the citation for it.
 * On first glance, it appears as though there has been issues with information added to the article. In order for the lack of merit of one piece of bad information to be projected onto another "this reflects badly on the work", one needs to employ Magical thinking. This is also the reasoning behind calling something Ad hominem; the action is not of the man, it is of itself. The self-promotion, I assume, is already removed. Any disciplinary action against the author I presume has been done. Let's move on to the value of the article as it stands. Anarchangel (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the phrase I was looking for was sympathetic magic. It is not a perfect analogy, but I stand by the premise. Anarchangel (talk) 06:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Anarch, your comments are really off-topic. You should not accuse another editor of faulty thinking--please focus on the content, not on the editor.  Most of what I have written is about the work itself (and the lack of depth of sources putatively establishing notability).  No one mentioned "disciplinary action" against another editor except yourself.  Again, please stick to the content. In reference to your own content, the "article" you refer to is only 55 words long in total, and does not say anything at all about "originating" a technique.  It does not make the claim you attribute to it.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Art Nouveau and Boston Globe constitute significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Subject therefore passes the general notability guidelines. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Response: Thanks for your comments, but the Art Nouveau "article" is 55 words, 4 sentences long. It is not significant coverage, in terms of length or depth, and the source itself (basically a blog with a small print run) is not a big deal.  Which Boston Globe article would you say is significant coverage, in terms of depth and independence, according to WP:GNG?  One of the Boston Globe articles was written by her cousin.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment As pointed out here by User:TenPoundHammer, everyone says, "Yes, this isn't good now, but if it's just fixed..." and then it never gets fixed. Userfy it, fix it, and put it back in the main namespace. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Userfying something to fix it is actually a very good point, and a helpful suggestion, but I do not see the need for it here. The arguments are similar to guilt by association: the article must be COI cause its subject worked on it...because there is COI the article must be fluff...with no facts to support any of that. Anarchangel (talk) 06:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Actually, if you read the above discussion, there is little said on COI. The discussion is mainly about notability, with reference to specific articles, such as the 4-sentence article.  Your characterization of the discussion is inaccurate.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2011 (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.