Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa Zexter


 * 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. North America1000 12:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Melissa Zexter

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

While some WP:SIGNIFICANCE is credibly asserted, I don't think this artist passes the test for having received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. There are no doubt many highly talented artists and art teachers who nevertheless do not met the notability criteria. The references given appear to be those a non-notable artist may accrue in the course of their career. As always, I'm more than happy to be proven wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 09:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  Nordic   Dragon  09:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.  Nordic   Dragon  09:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Nordic   Dragon  09:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I think exhibiting in ICP, Bronx and Brooklyn Museums of Art makes a statement. Also, about the sources: Juxtapoz Magazine is a reliable source in the art world and she got an article their. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep in addition she's had at least one non-trivial review of her work in the Boston Globe.--Jahaza (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:BASIC with significant coverage in Juxtapoz, AI Magazine, and Atwood Magazine, among others. She has exhibited over 50 times and is included in the Brooklyn Museum's Feminist Art Base. Since the article was nominated for deletion, it has expanded significantly and 9 sources have been added. gobonobo  + c 20:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with the editors above, especially since she's covered in art magazines like Juxtapoz. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Coverage is enough for WP:ARTIST 4(c). —David Eppstein (talk) 01:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Meidating the points above, the article has adequate coverage to back the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ugejuls09 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 29 February 2016 (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.