Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jah Jah
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 no consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jah Jah[edit]
- Jah Jah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability Cgwaldman (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have added several references to the article, basically reviews of her works in group shows including the Whitney Biennial. In addition to these however, there is the matter of a lawsuit in the past couple of years; see for example this & this, a case summarised in one commentary as "The Gordon v. McGinley decision is significant for creative artists and art galleries" ([1] – via HighBeam Research (subscription required) ). I am undecided whether that in itself adds to/confirms biographical notability though.
AllyD (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think that everybody who has been involved in a the Whitney Biennial and a copyright lawsuit is automatically notable. If Gordon v. McGinley is truly a significant legal precedent (which is doubtful) then perhaps it deserves a page, but this really does not justify what amounts to a biographical page for promotion of the plaintiff's music career. Cgwaldman (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:40, 31 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.