Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Scherman


 * 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. SNOW keep; no other result is possible  DGG ( talk ) 20:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Tony Scherman
Be aware that using multiple accounts to reinforce a viewpoint is considered a serious breach of community trust, and that commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maybeparaphrased (talk • contribs) 03:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable artist. Does not pass GNG. Maybeparaphrased (talk) 01:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep His website lists a number of sources, many with links that can be verified. There are reviews and articles in Border Crossings, Globe and Mail, Art in America, amongst others. His exhibition record is decent -- some °museum shows. And he appears to be in the collections of many museums (needs verification beyond his website). Passes GNG and ARTIST. The article just needs to be improved with sources. freshacconci talk to me  11:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Speedy Keep, His web site lists over a dozen significant museums that have his work in their permanent collection, which means he meets WP:ARTIST, not to mention the equally true arguments made by  freshacconci  above. WP:BEFORE was needed here.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 00:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added five permanent collection he is in, as well the fact that he has five drawings in the Pompidou's collection in Paris. Also known as the National Art Museum, or "Musée National d'Art Moderne". This is only about a third of the collections he is in. I would suggest that he clearly meets WP:ARTIST by the collections, and that the AfD should be closed as speedy keep. Changing vote above.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Whatever his website does or does not state does not really indicate if the article at afd meets NARTIST . That of course would be a primary not secondary much less independent source. Maybeparaphrased (talk) 01:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Check WP:ARTIST. He meets the requirements under being in numerous museum collections, many of which are sourced on the article page. Quote"The person's work (or works)... (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Pompidou. Numerous others. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per HVE et al --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * comment I checked ARTIST before I nominated him. You are claiming against AGF that I did not observe BEFORE here at and at other articles nominated by me for deletion. Then I figured it out when I looked  up all the original article creators and I noted that two articles written by you were sent to afd. Using AGF I must surmise it is just a coincidence. So if you have a problem, take it to a better venue. AFD is not the  place to try to get back at someone by claiming in bad faith that they did not observe before. Understand it, I always do research and  observe before. Stop falsely claiming I do not in order to try and influence others at AFD. It is not proper. Maybeparaphrased (talk) 01:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The ten museum collections (including the national Museum of Gfrance, at the Pompidou) that I easily found and added to the article, which gaurantee notability, are something that should have been found during WP:BEFORE. That is my only point. Please cease making false claims against me, as you were warned to do by admins at the recent ANI. Let's move along with the AfD with civility please.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with the nominator in this case GNG is met. On another matter I think it is rude and disruptive for HappyValleyEditor to have bad faith and accuse someone iof no before. Rather that admit when maybe addresses the poor behaviour he strikes out at him make more trouble at an AFD when the guy asked him to stop and go to a better venue. I have left a warning on the page of HappyValleyEditor for his bad faith shown here. Take that somewhere else. Zpeopleheart (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I make no false claims. While you are at it trying further to muddy this AFD. You were warned at that ANI you are referring to to steer clear of an editor that you tried to get in trouble. I guess it is another coincidence that since I disagreed with your position there you are now showing up at adds where I have posted falsely claiming I do not observe before. You were wrong on that. Your asking for a IBan was denied. Stop showing bad faith. Maybeparaphrased (talk) 02:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I've added ten museum collections, over twenty publications and a half dozen news/periodical refs, so this should be a strong keep now. I'll leave the article as it is and let other editors decide now.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Having such list of permanent collections and source I have no any doubt, this one is for keep. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Who exactly is the "majority vote" template directed towards? I've been involved with hundreds (thousands?) of AfDs and when that template is needed it's always because the discussion is littered with SPAs and new accounts calling for keep/delete without citing Wikipedia policy. I don't see any evidence of that here. In fact, the whole discussion is taking place with the involvement of only experienced editors. freshacconci talk to me  14:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The article satisfies WP:ARTIST. Sherman has received recognition for his use of encaustic painting (WPARTIST#2), he is the creator of a substantial body of work that has been critically reviewed (WPARTIST#3), and his work has been exhibited in and collected by notable museums (WPARTIST#4) Mduvekot (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment, i think WP:TEA may be needed here Coolabahapple (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets 4.(d) of WP:CREATIVE as Scherman's work " is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.", article now reflects this thanks to . Scherman also meets 3. as his works "have been the subject of .. multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." as shown by ebsco: Art in America "Reviews the first Paris exhibition by Canadian, Tony Scherman ..", Art Papers "The article reviews the exhibition of Tony Scherman's contemporary painting "About 1789", Border Crossings "The article focuses on the art exhibition 'Tony Scherman: pensees impensables.", Art in America "Examines the relationship between power and human destructiveness through the encaustic portraits by Tony Scherman", The New Yorker "Highlights the shows in several art galleries in New York City as of September 2004. .. Features Tony Scherman's "The Body Project.". Coolabahapple (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete No notability can be derived from claims on an artist's website. Mere mentions at a few articles is not significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant  20:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * please explain how references 9 through to 17 are "claims on an artist's website." and while you're at it that one page reviews are "mere mentions". Coolabahapple (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant, his exhibition record and museum collections (all verified) automatically satisfy WP:ARTIST and articles in Border Crossings, Globe and Mail and Art in America, not to mention numerous reviews are enough by far to satisfy WP:GNG. Not sure how you get "mere mentions at a few articles" from the bibliography on his website. freshacconci talk to me  01:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. I essentially concur with Coolabahapple's analysis.  Deli nk (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Multiple permanent collections of notable museums shows clear national-level notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:23, 8 July 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.