Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard e. schiff


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 17:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Richard e. schiff

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Delete non-notable autobiography Mayalld (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No independent sources establishing notability. The JPS talk to me  16:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, A7-bio and as autobiography, unless notability can be established per WP:RS --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment "Appropriately, Yale has also just published the complete works of one of Flavin's artist heroes: Barnett Newman: A Catalogue Raisonné by Richard Schiff, Carol Mancusi-Ungaro, Heidi Colsman-Freyberger, Bruce White and Ellyn Childs Allison (653 pages; $200)." San Francisco Chronicle. He's also mentioned in some other stories. I see strong indications this person may be notable. Let's not be hasty. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * He's also quoted here in the LA Times which says he is "professor of art at the University of Texas at Austin". No enough in and of itself. But let's at least make sure the person isn't notable before deleting. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Included in numerous articles (you have to wade through the West Wing citations even when you include "artist"), but most of them aren't availalbe online so I can't see what they say. "the University of Texas' own highly respected Cezanne scholar, Richard Schiff," from the Jul 25, 1996 Austin Stateman. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The Richard Schiff I'm finding seems to be a somewhat notable art historian. I'm not sure it's the same person though... "Boston Globe - NewsBank - Feb 8, 1995 Panelists are art historians Richard Schiff and Ann Gibson, and John McMahon, a painter who was de Kooning's studio assistant in the 1960s. ... " and "San Antonio Express-News - NewsBank - Feb 23, 1992 As the center's director, Richard Schiff, said, "Beauty . . . is a word that some people speak with embarrassment. An artist may not want his works to be ... " and there's quite a bit more... ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've concluded my investigation. I would say Richard Schiff the art historian is quite notable. If Richard e. schiff is someone else, an artist?, I see no indication that this person meets the guidelines for inclusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete But if someone wants to write up the Art History prof. I think that would be legit. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that the prior article, speedily deleted as copyvio, came from http://www.richardschiff.com/richard_schiff.htm I have not yet looked in any detail at that article to work out which Schiff this is, nor what we should do with the article.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to me on reading the link that Richard E Schiff is probably not the notable gentleman. One option is to ask the eponymous user who created the initial article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete A7, so nominated. ukexpat (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * speedy removed,let the consensus decide, there's certainanly an indication ofpossible notability-- which is enough to pass speedy.DGG (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * weak Keep probably under both creative professions and WP:PROF, If the presence in the museum collections can be demonstrated, he is certainly notable as a creative professional and nothing more needs to be shown. Similirly, as he is the author of a Univ. of California Press book on Cezanne,  Conversations with Cézanne" he might well be notable if there is additional published work. DGG (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the author is a different Richard Schiff, a prof at University of Texas in Austin, and not this artist. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete nothing WP:V and what DGG charitably calls an indication of possible notability is weasel words: maybe he's a janitor and his work is at the museum; or perhaps he's a plumber and has fixed the loos at a few notable locations. Why cannot the author say "His artistic works are displayed in the permanent collection of..." and back it up with something that we can verify. The burden is on the keepers to show notability by significant coverage in reliable sources or by our other guidelines and nothing's been shown so far... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * don;t you think the plumber or janitor analogy is a strawman? that you are is looking for weird and unlikely possibilities? if a work is in a museum's permanent collection it is in its collection, and if one can show it from a catalog or other suitable resource then it is demonstrated, and having  hem there is one of the key things that makes artists notable, and it by itself its sufficient if the museums are actually important. For the sort of art that can get put in museums, I think its overwhelmingly the main factor. & has the advantage of being able to be demonstrated.  A list is as good as a paragraph, and a suggestion that only a specific form of word swill work is alien to the spirit of Wp. I admit however, to continued confusion over whether there are one or two people here--I see no reason why an art historian could not also be an practicing artist, though most often they're separate.  DGG (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete unless notability can be asserted. I see self promotion instead.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - The article's primary claim to notability is "Schiff's work is in the Jerusalem Museum of Fine Art." (Wikilink added by me in this quote.)  However, the closest I could find via Google was the Israel Museum.  Just in case the name was wrong, I went to the Israel Museum's site and searched on "Schiff" -- and got no results.  I suggest that the article may fail verifiability. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * More research - The Art Students League of New York is an art school (if I read their web site correctly); "Life Member" according to their membership page means someone who was a paid member for 10 years. I openly question whether that qualifies as notable. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW I have added fact tags and a banner at the head of the article questioning notability and verifiability. Since the originator purports to be the subject he seems shy of adding citations etc, and of participating in this discussion.  That always rings hollow with me, so I say Unverifiable" "not notable" and "self puffery".  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:34, 30 January 2009 (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.