Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Cohen Banker
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 delete. Flowerparty☀ 21:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amy Cohen Banker[edit]
Is she notable enough? She gets about 2,500 Google hits[1], but the article has no 3rd party sources. RedRollerskate 18:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Counting Google hits is not research. Actually reading the pages that Google turns up is research. You did a search. Look at what came up and see whether any independent non-trivial sources exist. Uncle G 18:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing is, I'm not familiar with the art world, so it's hard for me to say which of these sites counts as non-trivial. There's been some discussion of this on the article's talk page, and no one there is certain the subject is notable enough either. I'm not saying the article should definitely be deleted, just that no one who's edited the article (other than the subject herself) is sure that this belongs here and we'd like to get a few more perspectives. RedRollerskate 19:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't find any hits in the Factiva news database. An artist called "Amy Banker" is quoted in a local Portland, Oregon newspaper article about choosing interesting Christmas presents was the most substantive I could find. She may be of some note in the artworld circles though. I'll try to see if any of the book references in the article are online. In any case, the article needs a lot of cutting down and editing if kept - currently it is a badly formatted resume. Bwithh 19:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A non-trivial source is something that provides in-depth information on the subject, and is more than a simple directory listing. A detailed biography of this person would be non-trivial, for example. Uncle G 19:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I've read first hundred or so results on Google, and most of them appear to be directory listings, message boards, and her user profiles on sites like Blogger or Amazon. RedRollerskate 19:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing is, I'm not familiar with the art world, so it's hard for me to say which of these sites counts as non-trivial. There's been some discussion of this on the article's talk page, and no one there is certain the subject is notable enough either. I'm not saying the article should definitely be deleted, just that no one who's edited the article (other than the subject herself) is sure that this belongs here and we'd like to get a few more perspectives. RedRollerskate 19:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm getting zero hits on Google Scholar, Google Books, and Amazon (A9.com). I checked out the two books with ISBN numbers given in the article. The first turns out to be a book printed by a self-publisher, iUniverse)[2] making it a highly unreliable reference. The second book has been indexed by Amazon's "Search Inside" function, but unfortunately the word "Banker" does not appear in the book at all[3]. Also "Amy" and "Cohen" don't appear. Based on these verification failures, I'm voting delete unless much better evidence comes up Bwithh 19:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. RedRollerskate 19:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above evidence. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 19:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Bwithh's evidence. --Aaron 19:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteBwithh did the homework. Appears NN. --Jayron32 05:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]- change earlier vote to No Opinion I have come across a website through an extended discussion with someone close to the topic. I am temporarily recusing myself from a vote to see what the consensus is on this source: Link that references the artist in question --Jayron32 04:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Good to see that further investigation going on. However, that page (I think you mean this one) is part of the "yourgallery" website which allows any artist to upload images with descriptions plus their bio and photo. (see also this). There are either 700+ish or 10,000+ish self-uploaded artists in the yourgallery database depending on whether you trust the ourmedia posting or the Guardian interview with Charles Saatchi more [4]. As it is intended to act partly as an art dealer's database, there does seem to be submission standards in place (though apparently its okay to show a non-art photo of your pet cat too as well as promotional posters for your own work). However, essentially it is a website where artists upload their own work and descriptions in an attempt to attract dealers/buyers. The Guardian newspaper ran a reader-based contest for the top 30 of the 10,000+ (or whatever) artists, but Banker did not make the list[5] Bwithh 04:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- change earlier vote to No Opinion I have come across a website through an extended discussion with someone close to the topic. I am temporarily recusing myself from a vote to see what the consensus is on this source: Link that references the artist in question --Jayron32 04:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as argued above. -- Hoary 07:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; doubtless a fine and accomplished person (per Talk), but... Robertissimo 09:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.