Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Isaacson


 * 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. Although several of the opinions are not policy based nor particularly strong there is enough of an opinion based on the available sources that the subject is an authority in his field. J04n(talk page) 19:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Robert Isaacson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable individual lacking Ghits and GNEWS of substance. Article references do not appear to be about the individual or are not independent. red dog six (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I could have done a better job documenting it in this stub, but Robert Isaacson is in fact a KEY figure in the scholarship on 19th C academic painting; his name turns up in many books and journals in part because he put countless forgotten painters "back on the map". For that reason, I think a Wikipedia entry with a bit of biographical detail might be appreciated by people who read in this field and know him mostly just by name. Isaacson's gallery also put on a number of seminal shows, none of which I've listed; he was a notable trendsetter even outside 19th C academic painting. He's also interesting for the extended portrait drawn by his friend James Merrill in his 1993 autobiography; I wrote the stub with an eye to correcting some of the gaps for readers of that book, which is sometimes assigned in college courses.


 * Reddogsix, another User removed your first "speedy deletion" tag having confirmed the subject's substance; do you have the right to re-submit you demand? I believe others will back me on the substance issue, so I would appreciate your re-reading the article with an open mind; thank you for reconsidering your position. Sandover (talk) 22:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - Having a name in an article does not create notability per Wikipedia standards. Being "appreciated by people who read in this field" is not a valid reason for having a Wikipedia article. The article must meet the criteria in WP:BIO or other associated guidelines. If the gallery is notable per guidelines, then perhaps the gallery should be the subject of an article.


 * You ask if I have the "right" to request an AfD be opened for the article. Certainly, since the purpose of an AfD is to accumulate more opinions and hopefully expand the content of the article, one would think you would welcome it.  The purpose of the AfD is to provide a wider circle of scrutiny and perhaps better documentation to support the article's notability.  Also, how is it you can read my mind and determine that I am not reading the article with open mind.  8-)  I know, kind of silly, but not sillier than your statement.  My best to you.   red dog six  (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sir  Rcsprinter,  Bt  (confer)  @ 22:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Sir  Rcsprinter,  Bt  (gossip)  @ 22:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - I don't think this article needs to be delete. The article contains useful sources & notability too. then why this "speedy deletion" tag? - War Minister (talk) 23:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Sandover (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Based on what? red dog six  (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Notability and good sourcing, I'd like to think, but I'm biased. More to the point, I owe you an apology. Of course you've the right to put a "speedy deletion" tag on the article, and apparently to restore it if another User deletes the tag without proper discussion. I was confused by the fact that two different Users did this (the second after I'd left a comment on their Talk page encouraging them to weigh in on the discussion). Despite our unfortunate and acrimonious start, you've inspired considerable improvement to the article's footnotes and phrasing; this would not have happened had you not raised the initial flag. I am indeed appreciative. &mdash; Sandover (talk) 06:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Being regarded as an authority in oner's field certainly establishes notability at Wikipedia & the references are sufficient to establish that.  DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per DGG—Being regarded as an authority in oner's [sic ;)] field; WP:BIO; per sources available in article. (note: I was alerted of this discussion via a post on Kudpung's talk page, but this did not influence my !vote in any way)  Theopolisme ( talk )  14:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BASIC: "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.", and others in the article suffice. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2013 (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.