Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diana Thater

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 04:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Diana Thater

Diana Thater (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Not notable artist.   jj137 ♠ 03:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete (shrug) I speedied it, so I guess I agree. ΨνPsinu 03:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep she does appear to strongly meet the additional criteria for creative professionals in WP:BIO, i.e., both international exhibitions and awards. Her work appears to have been widely exhibited, with a work in the Guggenheim collection (impressed me, at any rate). I've added her Carnegie museum bio to the External links to help substantiate this, as the current links don't do a very good job. While I have no connection to the article I would urge my colleagues to retain it, on the basis that art and culture need to be reflected in Wikipedia. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Thater is more than notable: she's been in the Carnegie International, Whitney Biennial, Dia Center for the Arts, Museum of Modern Art, Walker Art Center (I didn't check the history of the page--maybe her exhibition record was added after the article was AfD'd). Anyway, she's internationally known and has been shown at numerous significant galleries, museums and biennial. The article does need more sources, but there should be plenty out there. A google search gives you 22,800 hits--pretty much all of it her. freshacconcispeaktome 22:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I just checked the history: all the info on exhibitions was there before the AfD. Why would this had ever been brought up for deletion, Afd or speedy? Shouldn't it have just been tagged for references? Notability is quite obvious. freshacconcispeaktome 23:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Whitney Biennial, MoMA, Guggenheim Fellowship...--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep perhaps even a speedy keep per Freshacconci. A strange AfD nom, an even stranger speedy nom. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I am having a lot of trouble understanding why this would be up fpr speedy deletion. When I google musicains, actors and writers I see lots of entries. is there a bias against the visual arts? They may be less popular but that certainly doesn't make them unimportant. I can work on building more references but I still am unclear why it should be tagged for speedy deletionEddiesmom (talk) 02:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep per all above. Nominator please learn from this! Johnbod (talk) 01:48, 7 January 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.