Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahlam Shibli

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The result was withdrawn by nominator. (I am Dr. Drakken (talk · contribs) withdrew the AfD but forgot to provide the rationale at the top. I am filling this in for that user. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Ahlam Shibli

Ahlam Shibli (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Artist of very questionable notability. Currently, the article consists exclusively of a listing of the artist's exhibitions, all sourced to the artists's own website. The listings themselves include very minor and obscure galleries (e.g: "el Kahif Gallery, Bethlehem"), and consist of the same 3-4 exhibitions listed 5 or more times, for every place it was shown, including said obscure galleries. I suspect the page was created by the artist or a relative/friend editing with a clear COI. I am Dr. Drakken (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Participated in documenta.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Ethicoaestheticist and the numerous reliable sources discussing the artists' work, many of which have still not been incorporated to the article. I might also note that I created the article and I don't know Ahlam Shibli personally at all. Her name came up when I was doing research for an article on Palestinian art and I went ahead and created a stub entry for her as follow-up to that work. The nominator suggestion that the creator of the article has a "clear COI" stink of bad faith and isn't a good rationale for deletion. Tiamut^talk 23:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, violations of COI are a very valid reason for deletions. My apologies to you - I was not refering to you when I mentioned the COI - I had the anonymous IP who added the bulk of the exhibition list, sourced to the artist's web site, in mind. I am Dr. Drakken (talk) 23:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No personally directed apology is required (though it is appreciated), but checking the history of the article to see who actually created it would be a good idea before jumping to any conclusions about COIs. You should be aware that anonymous IP editors cannot create articles and assuming good faith of your fellow editors is a core principle around here. Because bad faith accusations has a tendency to taint the AfD process, I suggest you strike out the last part of your comment, which you can do by using <s> ...</s> Thanks. Tiamut^talk 23:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Participated in documenta, noticed by the Guardian..I would say this is a pretty obvious keep. Regards, Huldra (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2008 (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.