Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Who's Who in American Art


 * 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The result was   withdrawn. The article is still a mess. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 10:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Who's Who in American Art

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article has numerous issues that have not been addressed for two years: missing citations, written like an advert, needs cleanup/wikification, and contains only self-published sources. I'm not convinced that this article can be fixed through normal editing, or it will certainly take a significant rewrite to make it worthy of inclusion. With so few edits to it in three years, is anyone watching? Does anyone care? I don't, but my primary concern is that it is written like an advertisement and it does not cite any reliable, third-party sources. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 19:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep; there are 10,000 google news results to pick from. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And there are zero in the article. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 11:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The idea of a wiki is that anyone who feels that an article is inadequate can improve it. You are the one who seems to think that this article is inadequate, and another editor has helped you by pointing out where you can find the sources needed to improve it, so why don't you just get on with some constructive, collaborative, work rather than demand that others should do so? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Because I'm not a subject matter expert here, and I don't care to use my time about this topic. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 10:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - a poor article (I just pruned the advert-like copy) but about a well-known book. Its been around since the 40s at least and as another editor notes; there are lots of sources. Needs improvement not deletion. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:10, 3 July 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.