Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Schwalb (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   keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Susan Schwalb
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Autobiography of non-significant person without any secondary sources- Amy od (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC) — Amy od (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * "Without any secondary sources"?? I count 28 sources in the Reference list. What's going on here, a personal vendetta?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Subject is clearly notable. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 10:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Looking at the nominator's edit history, it's difficult to conceive that they are operating in good faith... they've also nominated Martin Boykan's article. Boykan was described in the American Record Guide as one of the most accomplished composers of his generation. He just happens to be married to Schwalb. Maybe this one ought to go to Speedy Keep. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't know these people from Adam. Happened to find an unknown artist (sorry--she is part of a 50-woman museum show right now, but other than that appears to be a smalltime gallery artist) listed prominently under silverpoint, to the ommission of many other, better known artists, (e.g., Hans Holbein). When I looked to her page, I found the whole thing written by one person--the same person who added the note on the silverpoint page, and who also built the whole page for her husband. Put them under the musicians and visual artists groups, and let them decide.  Looks suspicious to me, and I am an art major. amy_od (talk) 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Her work is represented in major public collections, including the Museum of Modern Art, New York, the National Gallery, Washington D.C., The British Museum, London, The Brooklyn Museum, NY, The Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, Kupferstichkabinett - Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Germany, Victoria and Albert Museum, London, England, The Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, England, Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, TX, The Achenbach Foundation of Graphic Arts, Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, CA, The Library of Congress, Washington, DC, The Rose Art Museum, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA, Yale University Art Gallery, New Haven, CT, Rhode Island School of Design, Museum of Art, Providence, RI and the Arkansas Arts Center, Little Rock, AK.


 * Small time? Or do you suspect that these are fraudulent claims? Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record: The article on her husband, Martin Boykan, was created on 2 February 2007 by unregistered editor User:Eli n. It was subsequently edited by a number of people, including User:Badagnani, User:Jubileeclipman, and myself. Another unregistered editor, signing as User:Bluehoon began editing Boykan's article on 4 February 2010, and on the same day created Susan Schwalb. It is therefore manifestly not the case that both articles are the sole creations of the same person.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record: I noticed that. But most of the entries on both pages were by Bluehoon. The four sources at the bottom of her article are all first-person. They read almost verbatim from her website. I do question her credentials. The National Gallery in DC displays only dead artists in the permanent collection.  Most of her other listings were group shows or self-submitted artwork to databases, etcetera.  I have no dog in this fight, and didn't go further than googling her name and visiting a few links she provided. I just saw a page on Wiki that doesn't meet the standards of significance for bios (no important pieces on display anywhere, no news articles I can find, and certainly no second-person source material). The page on her husband is another matter, but the periodical mentioned above boasts over 500 reviews each issue. If it's been publishing since 1932, I'm not surprised he was mentioned at least once. How many classical composers are there?  He may be a fine professor, but does he really meet the standards Wiki looks for in a significant bio? That is all.  Again, I am happy to leave this to the Wiki experts in these fields. —Amy _OD (talk) 15:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amy od (talk • contribs)


 * It sounds to me like a quick review of Notability might be in order. You seem to think that the bar is set much higher than it really is under current guidelines. It really will not do to go around nominating any biographical article for deletion if the subject is not in the Top Ten of his or her field.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sir, I checked those guidelines before I submitted these pages for review. The criteria I felt she did not meet were:

"Sources,"[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources.

Multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.

If the community feels that she is notable enough, so be it. But I would ask you to consider her three or four (unsourced) references to herself on the "silverpoint" page, including a plug for her book. Even Durer has fewer mentions of his name! —amy_od] ([[User talk:Amy OD|talk) 16:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.184.224 (talk)

Just counted--Make that six mentions of Susan Schwalb, and one for Albrecht Durer in the "silverpoint" article.—amy_od (talk) 16:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Jerome Kohl--All due respect, I had to check out your bio--very impressive in the music field. You have 10 years on me, but I am no ingénue, and I am very familiar with the art community and its ways of promotion. This was not a vendetta against a person, but a small attempt to keep Wikipedia from becoming a vanity press. You deserve a Wiki page more than either of these people for you contributions to the community, but I see you haven't gone and built your own page. I do wish you editors (catfish included) would consider your comments to me. The first thing you did was attack the person (me) questioning the source of, rather than the substance of my inquiry. I didn't mess with any of the pages, just submitted them for "cleanup" and possible deletion. It was the silverpoint page that really stuck out. This is the last time I will ever attempt to call a fraud or an error on Wiki, given the response (plus the interface is exhausting my brain). Wiki says they welcome community input, but I feel I received a pretty heavy-handed attack response from the get-go, w/o regard for the questions I was asking. It reminded me of the Wizard of Oz, "Who dares to question the authority of the Great Wizard of Oz?!!!" —amy_od (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There's clearly a possibility to compile a well referenced and informative article, see Google Books and Google News search results. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 21:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This article easily passes WP:ARTIST. She is part of the collections of dozens of museums world-wide. All of this is be verified with google books and news.  freshacconci  talk talk  13:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep notable and encyclopedic...Modernist (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2010 (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.