Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rah Crawford (2nd nomination)


 * 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. AGK &#9632;   11:23, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Rah Crawford
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

G4 has been contested on this article. Fails on WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. The New York Times sources that are reliable, have been discussed at previous deletion discussion too and were deemed trivial. Draft has been rejected twice in last one year. Hitro talk 14:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete no one but the article subject could have propelled the creation of such a flattering and detailed promotional piece, built on a foundation of passing mentions, minor accomplishments and articles published in sketchy sources. Fails GNG for lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Given the serious intent to creating a false persona of success here, as well as the previous deletion AFD, I would suggest SALT also.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Based on ensuing discussion, my stance is more of a weak Delete. - I found independent coverage that includes a feature article about the subject in Philadelphia City Paper here. Mentions in three New York Times articles, one for a building mural the subject painted, here, another in a review of a Brooklyn museum here, and the third for a painting of a grinning man included in a gallery showing here, do not alone hold up as significant coverage. But they add to notability when coupled with several other media outlet coverage. Also helping meet notability guidelines is the subject's inclusion in being named one of 11 City of Philadelphia creative ambassadors. I worked on the article and added a couple more citations, but it could use more paring down and some reorganizing. Still, based on the varied coverage as it stands now, the article passes WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:ARTIST. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC) -AuthorAuthor (talk) 16:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:BASIC says "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability", which is the case here. Also, please explain how this artist meets WP:NARTIST? He does not meet any of the criteria. The Nytimes sources are the definition of trivial, passing mentions. Here is the all that that Times sources above say
 * From one courtyard you can look up at Rah Crawford’s “We Are Golden,” depicting Bushwick residents including a pigtailed girl with an outstretched arm holding a red balloon;
 * an exuberant triptych by Rah Crawford channels Little Richard.
 * Rah Crawford's buoyant, optimistic depictions of a grinning man (above, iMan: Media) suggest endless possibility.


 * The Times coverage totals 55 words. The "my City Paper" source is the only decent source. You can dream all you want, but the notability standards are not met by a long shot. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Three inclusions in New York Times art reviews are hardly "trivial" or "passing mentions," and your saying so does not make it true. By the way, I do not "dream" about notability standards that by my understanding are clearly met. Thank you. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that 18 or more words (55/3, roughly) in the New York Times is SIGCOV? What about 16 or 17 words, is that still SIGCOV? It's clearly trivial coverage; two of them are not even complete sentences! Please see the WP:GNG guideline where trivial mentions are explained in an example: "Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,[1] that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band." (22 words). The problem here is that 55 words in the NYT is not significant coverage and does not contribute the subject's notability. As the GNG says" "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - The New York Times has twice been ranked the No. 1 newspaper in the U.S., thus the untriviality of being included in a Times arts review. That was my point. No need for a lengthy response or reiterating definitions I am quite familiar with. Thank you. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You did not answer how he meets WP:ARTIST, which is a high standard. I agree that the Times is good. 150 words in the New York Times would indeed be excellent coverage. A single sentence, or half a sentence is trivial. It means the reporter probably spent less than a minute writing it. It seems that being familiar with definitions and understanding them are two different things.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment As WP:NCORP makes clear with examples, coverage in The New York Times is generally reliable, but not always significant. A mention in a sentence fragment is not significant coverage. --Vexations (talk) 11:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Per AuthorAuthor. Into the Rift (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Meets WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG per AuthorAuthor's sources. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 02:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * delete PROMO overstuffed with sources that look better than they are. recalling that he is from Philadelphia and lives in NYC, the sources that look good turn out to be local.  this NYTimes article  ran in the local real estate section of the Times. The Philadelphia City Paper is celebrating a local boy. So we're left with a  2008 Times review by art critic Holland Cotter, of the Museum of Contemporary African Diasporan Arts, in which Crawford got half a sentence: "an exuberant triptych by Rah Crawford channels Little Richard.".  (the article in the Las Vegas Sun is labeled "submitted by Rah Crawford.") and a different 2008 review of a museum show at the Museum of Contemporary African Diasporan Arts by Times critic Monica Drake in which  he gets an image and a sentence: "Rah Crawford's buoyant, optimistic depictions of a grinning man (above, iMan: Media) suggest endless possibility." fails WP:ARTIST.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Many reliable sources available on the subject.WO1977 (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC) — WO1977 (talk&#32;•contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note that this SPA is the creator of this page .E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No clear consenus.
 * Delete, the refs in the article don't establish notability, he's mentioned but there's no sigcov. I checked books on the assumption everything useful from news is already in the article, nothing much there. Szzuk (talk) 13:41, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Article cites arthistoryarchive.com, a wiki to which apparently anyone can contribute: ( Submitting Artist Biographies: If you want to help out you can. Please research and write artist biographies. Send the biography as a text document (no Word Docs or RTFs please) and attach any specific artworks that should accompany it. Please use our rules for Labeling Art. Send the text document and images to us via email. If approved, your article will be added to the Art History Archive within 1-3 days.  "Note: If you are an art historian or an art student we can also post a link to your website under your name. ). E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. The only in depth maybe-independent coverage seems to be from one local paper. (Philadelphia City Paper was a former alternative weekly newspaper in Philadelphia.) Else, we have mentions. NPIC-Art does not seem to be notable either as a movement or an organization. There is no other stated basis for notability. --Bejnar (talk) 02:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. The sources mentioned by AuthorAuthor are, for the most part, trivial mentions.  The MyCityPaper source is low quality both because it's local (WP:AUD) and because of the unknown editorial oversight; the article also seems to be largely an interview.
 * In addition to being deleted once already, this was recreated as a draft, which was declined three times. The author then copy-pasted the text of the draft to mainspace, and arranged for the draft to be deleted by tagging it with template:db-g7.  While it's true that WP:AfC is an optional process, asking people to spend their time reviewing your work, then ignoring their input and moving it to mainspace anyway is WP:GAMING the system.  Not to mention that the copy-paste and history deletion technically makes this a copyvio.  Edit comments (currently deleted) like, Sulfurboy mentioned it was too close to the wording on another site - That bio was submitted at the same time as we submitted to Wikipedia it is by the same writer. Although, I did make many changes to this in order to not look like it was plagiarized. :) make it clear that there's undisclosed WP:COI.  In view of the persistent recreation, this should salted to avoid future abuse.  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Promotional article, sources appear to lack intellectual independence. Guy (Help!) 17:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, does neither meet NARTIST nor BASIC/GNG. Sam Sailor 09:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.