Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheri Gaulke

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. John254 03:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cheri Gaulke

Cheri Gaulke (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I do not think that this person is notable. Google search on "Cheri Gaulke" turns up few articles, at least most on the first page not about her. Google search on the sources in the "Bibliography" section usually turned up nothing. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 22:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep. There is much more to the world than what Google can find. It seems overly drastic to leap directly from "I can't find these pre-web resources on a quick Google search" to "Let's delete this article." Citations are provided; they deserve some legwork to try and track them down, they deserve more than some quick Google searches. If you question the validity of the citations, you might instead bring it up on talk, or flag them with {{Verify source}} Furthermore, you might try checking Google Scholar for old citations. In this case it turns up a few dozen promising leads; unfortunately they're mostly behind for-pay walls or otherwise hard to check online. — Alan De Smet | Talk 03:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep such reference are perfectly acceptable as long as it is clear they talk substantially about the subject. Sometimes on can see enough information. personally I accept "K Friedman - Performance Research, 2006 - Taylor & Francis... in the work of Vito Acconci, for example, and in the work of important American feminist performance artists of the 1970s such as Alyson Pou, or Cheri Gaulke. ... " as a sufficient indication. (and another review at [1] DGG (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Most of the Bibliography listing are in a legit magazine with newstand sales. In the world of artsy-fartsy fakers, she's probably as notable as any. MarkinBoston 22:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I am the person who originally created the this entry. I am also an academic art librarian. This person is a notable artist with a national reputation. She has received many grants including the National Endowment for the Arts, the State of California, and the City of Los Angeles. She is particulary well known within a certain field, specifically feminist art, but also within the Los Angeles art scene. The bibliography included many reviews of her work from very valid and respected art publications. One additional comment: Wikipedia is particularly weak in the area of art and art history. Being "popular" in mass media isn't necessarily the same thing as being a respected and notable artist. If someone has numerous citations in Wilson's Art Index, they are definately notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Sue Maberry 03:49, 24 August 2007 (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.