Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James X. Nova

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. consensus is that sourcing isn't up to snuff Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James X. Nova[edit]

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

Unremarkable artist (see WP:GNG). Likely autobiography. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, probably some shameless self-promotion. I can't find any sources that he doesn't publish that discuss him. Angryapathy (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am not sure if this is where to respond to editors or not. Was not able to find instructions on this procedure. I wanted to respond to the two individuals recommending deletion. This is a new page. I am still adding information, which is why I have requested suggestions on improving the page. I have followed the guidelines regarding notability. Sources and links have been provided. This is an artist with a long exhibition history, is well-known to New York gallerists, has received commendations from well-known curators, and has been considered to be controversial and innovative. As all such judgments are subjective, I would like to request specific suggestions for additional inclusions other than those cited, if contemporary art is a field for which you feel qualified to speak. Also, to the commenter who said "probably some shameless self-promotion." - first of all, that is untrue. I am a scientist, not an artist. I have been a co-worker and friend of James, but have adhered to the guidelines of neutrality as I understand them, leaving out laudatory remarks or promotional inclusions. Second of all, I find that kind of assertion and the manner in which it was phrased to be very unprofessional, assumptive, hostile, and frankly, libelous. It is unnecessary. Just stick to the facts and provide useful suggestions, please. I have never written an article of this kind before and am hoping to learn more as time goes one. Imlivin (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In order for a subject to be considered notable, there needs to be independent sources that describe the subject. None of the sources provided, nor any that I could locate, actualy discuss the artist in question. Merely providing sources that show the existance of a person is not notability. If what you say is true about Mr. Nova, in regards to him being "well-known", then you should be able to find a source that is about James X. Nova, not ones that mention him. You should re-read WP:NOTABILITY. Angryapathy (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know there have been newspaper reviews of James's art exhibits, but the ones I have seen were not from digital editions. I can investigate further. Is there a way to submit scanned hardcopies? And many pre-web era news and culture publications have never been digitally archived, most I would guess. As far as letters of commendation, I would guess that this would be a violation of privacy to reprint them or at least would require a request to the sender for permission to reprint. Please advise and thanks for the constructive criticism. Imlivin (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A source is a source, and does not have to be digital. But I would make sure that sources show one of the following, as stated in WP:ARTIST:

1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.

2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.

3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

4. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

If your sources can prove any of these, then that would weigh in favor in keeping the article. However, remember that if the article does get deleted, this is not a comment on the talent of the artist, but merely that the artist does not meet the requirements to be added to Wikipedia. Angryapathy (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please find recent additions, per suggestions by User:Angryapathy. Imlivin (talk) 03:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the articles references are what would be considered reliable sources. I can find none in my own searches. -- Whpq (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even with the additions, I do not feel that this artist meets the notability requirements for WP. Angryapathy (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with caveats. There are several assertions of notability, particularly exhibiting in major Manhattan and Taos galleries, either of which would place the subject in the top tier of living artists; both are major art centeres. I've read the Taos News, and I know that their website has a very poor archive (my mother lived there for 18 years, she subscribed to the Taos News, and I've visited the town 20 times.) Thus, the subject would pass under Factor 4 of WP:ARTIST. However, what this article really needs is much better sourcing. Assuming that can be done, it should be kept. Ironically, asserting notability and also defamation are virtually mutually exclusive, according to the public figure doctrine. The nominator often says hurtful comments, but we've gotten used to him. Bearian (talk) 00:40, 11 May 2010 (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.