Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dvora Bochman

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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 07:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dvora Bochman[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:GNG with only 3500 hits on Google in Western script (I don't know how many in Hebrew). Some of the given sources have nothing to do with mrs. Bochman while her work and exhibitions are also not convincing as work of a great and important artist. The Banner talk 23:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Haven't looked at the sources, so she may or may not be notable. But there are clearly additional ghits in Hebrew. And of course we don't determine notability by number of ghits. See WP:GOOGLEHITS. Also -- the person must be notable by wp standards. Not, as nom suggests is the standard, "great and important".--Epeefleche (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:ARTIST. Artist without any significant critical attention, no evidence that her work is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Not known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.Marokwitz (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, due to past interaction problems I had with the article's creator User:OrenBochman I prefer to abstain from voting on the deletion of the article he created. I'll just note that, besides obvious COI problems, about 80% of the article is currently unsourced and if kept it still needs a very strong cleanup. Cavarrone (talk) 14:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - First thank to everyone here on the helpful comments on this article which has been been improved per the AFD notice, by sourcing all the facts which are not considered common knowledge on the subject, such as Exhibitions, Stamp issues per Cavarrone's comment. Though the deletion notice fails to show sufficient WP:Before or an understanding of WP:GNG a legitimate concern has been raised by another. As Such I have edited the article to better indicate that the subject's complies with WP:Artist. Unfortunately most of this work has been deleted because some sources were not available online.... I therefore refer to a historic version of this article: at [1] which contains information showing compliance with WP:Artist as well as WP:GNG. Here is a breakdown of the facts:
- Bochman, an artist and stamp designer (of over 40) stamps in Kenya and Israel has been the subject of significant coverage in independent print periodicals of good repute based in four continents (Africa, Asia, Europe and North America). According to the norms this establishes her notability per ^WP:GNG.
- Bochman is also a notable artist and graphic designer based on the following facts, supporting clauses 4, 5(b), 5(c), 5(d) of WP:artist:
  1. The sources authored by Ndavu Eva; Gacheru Margaret; Ritter Hanit; Ivor Davis; Rimona Schiff and others are by prolific art critics and consist of both facts and criticism of Bochman's philatelic works and art exhibitions. ^{(WP:Artist #4)}
  2. Philatelic materials produced by Bochman are on display in the Alexander Museum of Postal History and Philately as part of its permanent exhibit ^{(WP:Artist #5(d))}
  3. The picture letter to god placed at the entrance of the Eretz Israel museum ^{(WP:Artist #5(d))}
  4. The solo exhibition titled 'creation' at the Rombah Synaogoue in Budapest and elsewhere (deleted) were a significant part of the Summer Jewish Festival 2012 in Budapest (AKA Festival for a Peaceful Coexistence).^{(WP:Artist #5(b))}
  5. Bochman's painting Woomanwood was chosen as picture of the year in 1985.^{(WP:Artist #5(c))} BO | Talk 14:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - - - Don't start twisting my words, mr. Bochman. I have removed only that what was unsourced or effectively unsourced (like the stamps about fungi, that were only linked to a site about fungi without info about the designer). What I could not check, is still there. But I did make the comment It would be nice to have a direct link to one of the mentioned articles, if available. And I also like to know what you perceive as my own COI because that is a total mystery to me. The Banner talk 01:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I am willing enough to assume good faith in this case, but your accusation that I have a COI, without explanation, while not clear declaring your own, makes that extremely difficult. The fact that sources are out of my reach does not make it easier, nor that the relevant notability guideline WP:ARTIST is used pro and contra the article. But still I am not convinced that mrs Bochman adheres to WP:ARTIST far enough to overcome the COI issues. Sorry. The Banner talk 09:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. OrenBochman, first I think that you should disclose you relationship with the subject of this article per WP:COI. While adding reliable sources is a good improvement, I found some of your arguments unconvincing. Where are the sources saying that The picture letter to god is permanently featured at the entrance of the Eretz Israel museum? Or that Woomanwood was chosen as picture of the year in 1985? By whom? I tried searching for periodicals called "viva", "Interlude" and "Givaton" but failed to find evidence for their existence. If you provide stronger evidence for your claims, this could help. Marokwitz (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The notice on the page and info on the talk is disclosure enough for me at this point!

Would a photo of viva, interlude & Givaton articles shared via the WWW for a few day be enough ? (note: the Givaton is in Hebrew) BO | Talk 00:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I added links to the National Archive version of articles covering the first two exhibitions listed as well as a summary of their content. BO | Talk 02:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep major artworks (the murals) in public places meet WP:ARTIST just as much as if they had been in museums. Probably the stamp designs do also--I don't even think it's necessary to show they're in a philatelic museum. There seems to be adequate documentation for this, though it would help to have quotations from the printed sources. The nom's argument based on ghits is not a criterion--we do not use this for evidence in an AfD one direction or the other. And of course no argument or implication based on requiring only Western script references or only online sources is ever valid. WP covers the world, as long as the articles here are written in English. DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep agree with DGG... Stamp designs in particular sways my thinking in this regard. Quotations from sources would be useful / enhance article. (Pcatanese (talk) 02:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Weak keep. I've struggled with this one for a week. The ghits in Hebrew, and the fact that we don't determine notability by number of ghits, undermine a basis for this nomination. As does that fact that we do not, as nom suggests is the standard, require that the subject be "great and important". At the same time, notability here is not as apparent per wp standards as I might like. Still, the murals and stamp designs, certainly combined, seem strong enough for a weak keep, per our notability standards.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:08, 13 March 2013 (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.