Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalie Bookchin

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Natalie Bookchin

Rescued from speedy, but does not appear to be especially notable, although I'm no expert on what constituted notability in the art world. Herostratus 20:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral as nominator. Herostratus 20:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • If I can find resources online within the next weeks about her contributions to the art world, will there be a a re-consideration to keep this article?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by CyberPuke (talk • contribs).
    • The next weeks? Herostratus 21:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment AfDs only stay up for five days, so "the next weeks" is too long. How long does it take to do a rudimentary google search though? ColourBurst 21:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, probably Doing the "rudimentary google search" I suggested earlier, sources: [1] [2] [3] [4]. That's a start. ColourBurst 21:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and comment I found the article as non notable so I tagged it for a speedy Delete. The nonnotabilty is confirmed by the author of the article who said on the article's talk page, "Natalie Bookcin is an comtemporary media artist who have made contributions well known to the art world, but not known to the public." Also please sign your post on talk pages by using four tildes (~). Michael Greiner 21:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC) Changing vote to Weak keep. Michael Greiner 20:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think a single user's opinion on whether somebody's notable, especially since he/she is not familiar with the notability policies, constitutes as confirmation. Otherwise it would be really easy to sabotage the AfD process. ColourBurst 21:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I was just quoting the the article's author. Michael Greiner 21:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I was referencing the quote from the article's author when I said that ("single user" refers to the author of the article). I mean, just because somebody, even the author of an article says somebody's not notable doesn't mean he/she is not. ColourBurst 21:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep, borderline as member of RTMark and involved with the gatt.org prank. --Dhartung | Talk 23:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think her case can be made better as an academic than as a well-known artist. She is the co-director of a major art program. In reply to Greiner's comments, I think assuming that wide public knowledge of a figure is the only route to notability is a dangerous path to take. Substantial recognition within a field is the best way to deal with academics, and if we don't accept that we will have to throw a LOT of important scholars out. As you can see on Google scholar, her work has attracted considerable attention. Passes WP:PROF. Irongargoyle 23:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe this link will bring further enlightment to who she is. http://www.fondation-langlois.org/html/e/page.php?NumPage=289 Cyberpuke
• Keep not brilliant article, but notable enough for major exhibitions. LotLE×talk 20:04, 9 September 2006 (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.