Talk:Susan Collins (artist)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Own words[edit]

Please rewrite the article in your own words. Thank you. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 15:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Inhabited content[edit]

I found the following listing at the British Library http://catalog.bl.uk/ , and think it might be worth mentioning in the article.

  • Collins, Susan Alexis. Inhabited content : an exploration into the role of the viewer through the realisation of ’In conversation’ and other works. University of Reading, 2001.

When working on the biography of a British academic, it is often a good idea to use http://catalog.bl.uk/ to see what the academic has written. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 15:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

copyright[edit]

This user finds copyright paranoia disruptive. Artlondon 15:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

notability[edit]

Collins organised the Tate's first net art -- http://www.tate.org.uk/netart/tateinspace/

recent article http://www.ciac.ca/magazine/archives/no_25/entrevue.htm

As the article stands, I'm personally quite happy that notability has been asserted. I'd love to see more refs though. I've tagged as many facts with the ciac ref as I can, but there's still one sentence that remains unreffed. Can anyone help with the ref? Chovain 20:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issues[edit]

I noticed that the entire article is a copy of Susan Collins "Info" page at http://www.susan-collins.net/ (or http://ucl.ac.uk/slade/sac/info leads to the same page). Nominated for deleted becasue, looking at the above comments, it hasn't been improved in 5 years. Though Collins is not completely un-notable, it may not be worth the effort to try saving, unfortunately. Sionk (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the edit history we find the copyvio originated with this edit [1]. I've reverted the article to the version it was before the copyvio. She seems to have some claim to notability so its not an automatic prod. There may be a case for deleting some of the revisions which are copyvio's.--Salix (talk): 00:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]