Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 8
 |
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.
- 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. A fair amount of research has been done and the consensus is that sufficient sources do not exist.--Kubigula (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Tea With Terrorists[edit]
- Tea With Terrorists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Self-published book; appears to fail WP:NBOOK. A quick google reveals plenty of results - thanks to a cobweb of promotional content associated with the author. Difficult to have an article on this topic without promoting the author and their fringe position, since few independent/mainstream sources have paid any attention to it. bobrayner (talk) 13:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: The article was previously PRODded by Roscelese (talk · contribs); the article's creator removed the prod tag bobrayner (talk) 13:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Rahulchic sneakily edited my comment. I have now undone that. Do not put words in my mouth. bobrayner (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Rahulchic refactored other people's comments again; I've had to restore the comment above. Please stop doing that. bobrayner (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Rahulchic deleted my comments again with accusations of bias. This is disruptive; stop now. If you're in a hole, the first step is to put the shovel down.bobrayner (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Rahulchic deleted my comments yet again; I've restored them yet again. Rahulchic, let me make this clear to you in short words: If you remove and edit other people's comments and then keep on hitting the revert button, you will get blocked from en.wikipedia. Acting like this does not help your cause. bobrayner (talk) 12:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- bobrayner Sorry for the reversions but I did that to revert your pushing my answer to your accusation (05:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC) down inside the discussion page to make it disappear. I wanted my answer to be near your accusation but you were not allowing it. Anyways please comment on the topic on hand (and also give others space to discuss). I have developed the article and improved it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulchic (talk • contribs)
- Rahulchic deleted my comments yet again; I've restored them yet again. Rahulchic, let me make this clear to you in short words: If you remove and edit other people's comments and then keep on hitting the revert button, you will get blocked from en.wikipedia. Acting like this does not help your cause. bobrayner (talk) 12:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Rahulchic deleted my comments again with accusations of bias. This is disruptive; stop now. If you're in a hole, the first step is to put the shovel down.bobrayner (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Rahulchic refactored other people's comments again; I've had to restore the comment above. Please stop doing that. bobrayner (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Rahulchic sneakily edited my comment. I have now undone that. Do not put words in my mouth. bobrayner (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}. |
- This article can't be deleted simply because it is on a controversial topic and enrages Islamists.
- Section on Self-publication says: In this regard, it should be especially noted that self-publication and/or publication by a vanity press indicates, but does not establish non-notability. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NBOOK Therefore, it is clear that self-publication is no ground for deletion of an article without any doubts on the content of the article itself.
- The novel 'Tea With Terrorists' is a result of research which includes the authors' visit to 120 countries and interviewers of several terrorist groups. Though it is hated and disagreed by Islamists, it is a fine example of research which are on controversial topics. The author is a graduate of University of Southern California and an entrepreneur. The book has had wide media coverage and is still debated in circles.
- Not enough reason for deletion. Thanks a lot for the reviews. Here are some of my points:
- 1) Notability: Checkout the Amazon's page about the book http://www.amazon.com/Tea-Terrorists-Who-They-Kill/dp/0971448116. This book has received 3.3 out of 5 Stars. This book has got 67 customer reviews on Amazon's website. I hope it does tell something.
- 2) I agree that some people want it to be "deleted", even as most of their objections could be "worked upon" and "improved". Let us help build this page into a reliable one.
- 3) We have books' pages like this: [Maverick] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maverick_%28book%29 which don't mention any single source! But perhaps it is not marked for deletion because it doesn't provoke anyone. This book on politics and terrorism gets a lot of eyeballs.
- 4) Note about author: I had written the original piece and had included a section about the author(s). Because I thought it was important for readers to know about the authors and their background, especially for this book on this controversial topic. It helps the readers to know the background of the authors so that they can understand that the authors are indeed well educated, qualified, and may be unbiased. But if we want to remove the section about authors, we are free to do that.
- Improved. Hi all, I have edited the main article and (1) removed the section about authors, (2) added more content and review on the book itself. It is looking much balanced now. Please review and if we agree, let us remove the deletion tag. If you have more suggestions, please share. Rahulchic (talk) 07:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Improved. While we want more authors to contribute articles and time to Wikipedia, it is is shocking to see how some members are fighting to delete content from Wikipedia... Now that the article is improved and balanced, I hope it is alright to leave it at peace. Rahulchic (talk) 07:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Working to improve the article.
- Hi everyone,
- I have done some more improvements on the main article, each backed by credible references.
- In the main body I have inserted the following:
- 1) The book and its analysis of Islam was criticized by Muslims. Kenyan Muslims criticized the book terming it blasphemous to their faith and compared it with Salman Rushdie's controversial Satanic Verses, and even demanded its ban. Using: BBC Monitoring international report http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=NewsLibrary&p_multi=BBAB&d_place=BBAB&p_theme=newslibrary2&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=10248CD172DAF91F&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM
- 2) and has claimed having spent thousands of hours studying the Koran and interviewing Muslim terrorists. Using: Time for Everyone to Denounce Radical Islam http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2681717&page=1#.TwrNBoH5v4s
- Also, I have inserted in external links section links to Google Books and Bernes and Noble webpage which have many reviews and synopsis of this book. Google Books: Tea with terrorists: who they are, why they kill, what will stop them Bernes and Noble: Tea with terrorists: who they are, why they kill, what will stop them
- Comment: bobrayner, I had not edited your comment but I had made it "complete". You talked about me but didn't give full picture: when you had said that I had deleted the prod tag, I had done that only after editing and improving the article. And I thought others should also know that, hence I put that along with your comment.
Rahulchic (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Improve but Do not delete I see that some members have first marked this article for deletion and then are finding new faults into this. An article which has been there for more than 2 years! Let us improve it and make it best for readers. But there is no reason it should be deleted based on personal biases. 168.87.3.33 (talk) 05:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- This infrequently used IP probably counts as an SPA for purposes of this discussion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. So far the sources on the page do not seem reliable. One is a link to the book's page (a primary source), there's links to non-notable blogs that review the book, there's links that only briefly and I mean briefly mention the book on a side panel, things that have been written by the author (more primary sources), and sites that just don't seem like they meet the requirements for a reliable source. The Daniel Pipes page looks good, but it mentions Winn and not Tea with Terrorists. The biggie here is that the sources must be about the book. Articles about Winn would be best mentioned on his article (which is also having problems with reliable sources, I might add). Even if Winn is found to be a notable person, notability is not automatically transferred to the book. Even the bigger NYT bestselling authors don't have an entry for every book because not every book they've written has been notable. I'll try to do a search to see what I can find, but so far the entries on the article here aren't solid enough to keep the book.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
- Additional. I'm going to remove the bits that aren't about the book itself or aren't reliable from the entry. Remember, this is an article about the BOOK. NOT about Winn. He has an entry already. This is about the book and not about the author.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
- Comment. I'm removing the big lengthy section that talks about the authors, where you can get their books, and where they've been interviewed. Again, this is about Tea With Terrorists, NOT the authors. This should already be on their own articles, not on the book's page. I removed all of the cruft from the article. My biggest concern with the article is that rather than discuss the book, it went into detail about the authors and the controversey that the authors have received. The only things that have actually mentioned TWT were primary sources from the authors. There is one single Bloomberg article that briefly mentions the book, but so briefly that it's really more of a trivial source at best. I'm not saying delete, but this article needs a lot of work. People have been making it more of a political soapbox for Winn than an actual encyclopedic entry about the book. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
- Make notable or delete A broad google search of the title and author came up with three more minor references. Probably not enough to make it notable enough to be covered here. Info belongs in his article. CarolMooreDC 17:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment A brief look at the references show that they are indeed minor- very minor. The East African Standard might be a good article, but it's hidden behind a paywall and we're unable to verify whether or not the article is in-depth enough to count as a reliable source. I'm having a pretty hard time finding sources to show notability. Most of what's out there is on the websites that aren't really what Wikipedia would consider to be notable. There's enough coming up to show that Winn does indeed seem to merit an article (although the page desperately needs to be cleaned up), but not enough to show that this book merits an article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
- Delete or redirect back to Craig Winn. I tried to find sources for this, but there's just not anything out there. There's just enough for Winn to squeak by on notability guidelines, but that notability is not transferred automatically to his writings. That the article was mostly written to be a secondary biography about the author rather than to be an encyclopedic entry for the actual book was pretty telling that this just lacks individual notability. There's brief and incidental mentions, but not enough to show the coverage needed to warrant an entry to itself. At most this should be a redirect back to the author's page. I'd say merge, but most of the info on this page is just an author bio and is already on the author's entry.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
- Delete. All mentions in reliable sources are trivial; there simply isn't enough coverage for a WP:NBOOK pass for this self-published book. (CricketSong is the name of Winn's self-publisher - it prints only his books.) Tokyogirl makes a good point about the article itself belying the book's utter non-notability. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete self-published book which lacks notability, although I guess we can turn the title into a redirect to his article. I'm not happy that his article says "He has published these books through the Cricketsong Books imprint, a division of Virginia Publishers." without mentioning that Virginia Publishers is owned by The Winn Company. Dougweller (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prophet of Doom. Dougweller (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have viewed the Wikipedia article on Tea_With_Terrorists and I don't understand why it is put for deletion. It is alright and has not tried blaspheme or anything in a biased manner. It also has so many references which I find missing on so many Wikipedia articles. Otherwise you will have to delete so many articles! But this one is good, keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.175.68.38 (talk) 12:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Some samples
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Marketers_Are_Liars => Contains Amazon.com as reference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_Brand Contains no references at all!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_to_Great Contains blogs as external links and no other ref.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_New_Thing => Two liner review. No reference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fearless_Change => One line review. No reference.
Now these are not the only ones having such problem. These are only samples. But these have not been deleted. Perhaps because there has not been a fine networking like we have of "delete anti-Islamic texts" everywhere.
Btw, Bobrayner and Dougweller have edited the Wikipedia page; are they satisfied now? Some of their edits have left the article with fewer references than before - as if skies will fall if I use amazon.com link in the Wiki article.
Still waiting for Wikipedia moderators. We are not voting here for anything. We want an unbiased decision. My take is that the present shape of the article is better than 80% of book reviews available on Wikipedia. Let it remain there and spend our energies in better things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulchic (talk • contribs) 08:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Rahulchic (talk) 08:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Have you read WP:AFD as I've asked? What we are doing here is trying to agree if this book meets our criteria for notability. We aren't voting but we are casting what we refer to as !Votes, and our arguments should be based on our policies and guidelines. It really doesn't matter for this AfD if there are other bad articles out there. I've nominated one of the books you list for deletion and removed Amazon.com from another. We don't have moderators, we have Administrators, such as me. Someone, not necessarily an Administrator, will look at the arguments after this has been open for 7 days and decide on the basis of the policy based arguments whether this should be deleted or not. Dougweller (talk) 11:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. I wasted 30 minutes of my time looking for any sort of coverage beyond user reviews and blogs. Nothing. This book has had 8 or so years to achieve notability since it was first published. That's plenty long enough. If it can't become notable on its own, there is no reason for Wikipedia to help it along. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
Baron Baretzky Ricardo[edit]
The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. 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 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Dean Williams (Author & Actor)[edit]
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}. |
- Dean Williams (Author & Actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable subject, apparently known only for some obscure book. Article seems to have been written by the subject. However, makes some assertion of importance, so I thought AfD was more appropriate than CSD. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 06:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - book is not just obscure, it's unpublished; the publisher website lists a June 2012 release date. If that's the most notability he has... --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per NatGertler - This article fails to assert the importance of its subject. -- WikHead (talk) 07:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Obvious delete is obvious. If an admin happens across this please just speedy close and get rid of it. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 07:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. There's nothing here to show notability and I'm a little suspicious of the fact that we've had so many single purpose accounts sign up just to edit this article. I don't think that they mean to do any harm, but I can't help but wonder if they're potentially sockpuppets or meatpuppets that know Williams personally. Just in case they're reading this, please be careful about adding to articles about someone you know. It's very easy for good intentions to turn bad because you're viewing things as having more notability than it actually has. Also, IMDb cannot be used as a reliable source to show notability, nor can any pages that merely list Williams' resume or acting profile. A reliable source would be an article that goes into depth and length about Williams and doesn't just briefly mention or quote him. Also, just starring in films and writing a book does not give automatic notability, no matter what company signed him. I also want to mention that pages that just go to the publisher's website or any place where the book is just listed for sale cannot be used as reliable sources showing notability either because they just show that the books exist and that Williams has wrote, which again- does not automatically give him notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)Tokyogirl79
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Max Semenik (talk) 10:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Nicole van Dam[edit]
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}. |
- Nicole van Dam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Subject fails WP:GNG and that it has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources.
- Subject fails WP:ARTIST on each point. The artist apparently has been featured in some lower profile collections according to the claims of the article, but that does not equate to "featuring in permament collections in notable galleries". Similarly, the artist has athored books that are sold on Amazon, but I can't find any independent secondary coverage of these books.
Article doesn't establish notability, and comes across primarily as very promotional in nature. Betty Logan (talk) 12:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Note to busy actual editors: Before you trudge through the walls of text below, you might want to know that User:Artmaestro, who speaks about the subject in the third person, is in fact the subject herself, per her own declaration. [26] Honestly, why do people insist on embarrassing themselves this way? EEng (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC) P.S. I'm adding the SPA tag to her comments below.
- THIS FROM DEE NOBLE:
- KEEP: We are new at this and not sure how to participate formally, but this sounds like an urgent situation so please forgive the lack of formality. We often use Wikipedia as a our first place to search things, and we expect to find things about the super famous and locally famous and exciting up and coming. In writing this, we hope that we not only are expressing our support for this page, but also for the notion that what is "significant" and "success" and "notability" for an artist/author differs greatly from what is "notability" for a blockbuster movie. To us, Nicole van Dam is a VERY important local artist with an impressive international presence due to her many years of licensing her fine art onto products, and we would be surprised NOT to find her on Wikipedia, as would many of her collectors. For artist's, not every exhibit or major collection purchase becomes newspaper fare (or readily internet accessible). For example, her work has hung at Santa Barbara City Hall for several years (and not only are photos of her art hanging at City Hall on the artist's website Wishes.bz (under the Memory Gallery tab) but you can contact the City Hall Mayor's and Councilmen's office to confirm that, their contact info is in the article). Her art is also a significant part of a local major collection at Community Memorial Hospital, and was on display for their grand opening of their new Cancer Center Building (again, photos of this are in the Memory Gallery tab of her website, and you can contact the hospital using the information provided in the article). In addition, her work has hung continually for more than a decade, and is currently on display at no less than 5 venues in our area, and she has had MANY gallery openings (cites for Newspaper coverage is in the article),she has been written up in the Montecito Journal (cite provided in the article, with date, etc), and chronicled by the Montecito Historical Committee (contact and name of chronicler provided in the article along with contact information), and her 1978 mural at the Harvard Smithsonian Observatory is part of the Smithsonian Institution's slide show collection, which happened in 1978. She gives back to the community significantly (see the Community Service tab of her website), not only as a volunteer and donor of her art & time to worthy causes, but also teaches for Santa Barbara City College (she is listed on the college's site as a member of two departments - Art and Business/Entrepreneurship). She has authored several books (as can be seen by Google Books and Amazon), and has been invited as the artist for gallery openings to read her poetry with her art (again, cites provided in the article, including to the Ventura Star newspaper, which is the newspaper for this LARGE part of California, the Central Coast). Her art has been licensed internationally, on many products (we own many of them and can send you pictures of them; by searching her name you will find the myriad of pictures on the web (search just for her name, MANY will come up), please also search Amazon.com, if the photos on her website do not suffice). For example, if you search the results on Amazon.com for her name, not only will the many books she wrote appear, but also right now there are many glass plates made under license bearing her art, that are for sale by vendors totally unrelated to the artist. This is in addition to the other cites such as to her listing as a Harmony Ball artist provided in the article, that you can see on the web. If you search for her name and tile you can find another licensor who licenses her art and puts them on tile murals. She (her work and poetry) has been written up in collector newsletters that are international (again, cite provided with location on web for the source of the newsletter provided). One of her children's books, that she wrote and illustrated, has been licensed by the same company that does the Pixar movies for the iPhone and iPad, etc. (again, cite and link provided; an international celebrity did the narration for the digital version). Through all these products out there bearing her name (from fine art to licensed products to children's books to adult books to digital), thousands (literally) of people (some avid collectors like us, some not) own something of her creations might wish to go to Wikipedia to learn more about her. It is an onerous responsibility to say what the world does NOT have the right to read - there should be an article about this artist for someone who just purchased (or was given) something bearing her name. We believe, and perhaps reasonable minds might differ, that this artist has enough accomplishments that it is clear that she is NOTABLE and is collected not only regionally but around the world, including also the slide archive at the Smithsonian Institution. We think it would be a shame if Wikipedia took her information away. We are not sure what Wikipedia's incentive would be to do that. Also, since we are in the midst of the holidays, I personally think it is a shame that this is coming up now, as it is a questionable time to get people's participation when they are busy with family, and I don't know how long the window is for this decision. We ask that the reviewers search the web for the artist's name, and begin to think that if so many products have been circulating for at least 10 years, how many owners and collectors there are out there of her work, many of whom are older and less likely to use the web (I know this Wikipedia process is confounding me and again I apologize if this is wrong but it is important to us!!!). It's true you won't find her (or very many living artists) mentioned in the media with the intensity as you would a blockbuster movie or Harry Potter (all of whom have well paid publicists, by the way - it's a bit naive to think such a mention is not swayed by fiscal might and connections), but such coverage as for a blockbuster movie is not the standard for a fine artist. We think most fine artists would agree that her accomplishments ARE notable accomplishments for a fine artist, and hope that this information is helpful to you all in making your decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeeNoble (talk • contribs) 18:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC) HERE IS OUR SIGNATURE (HOPE THIS WORKS!)DeeNoble (talk) 03:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC) — DeeNoble (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- — Artmaestro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. I just wanted to add for now that we're still in the holiday season so we're off for more happy holiday celebrations, so I need a little more time to address this, and I hope that is OK with everyone. In the meantime, Happy New Year everybody, and if you have time to spare, I hope you browse inside the "Tempo-Rhythm and Rhyme of the Artist" book and that you enjoy the art and poetry you find there - I cite to the Amazon listing for this book at http://www.amazon.com/Tempo-M-Nicole-van-Dam/dp/1453802118 because it allows people to actually read the inside of the book and see some some of the book's art and poetry[1] - and please also visit http://artimagination.hypermart.net/wordpress1/?page_id=560 where you can also see more art and poetry. You might also get a kick out of the memory ball at http://artimagination.hypermart.net/wordpress1/?flagallery=memories-make-the-world-go-round because the memory ball has lots of photos of the various gallery openings (jam packed as you will see), art at City Hall, art in other collections, etc. After the holiday I'll weigh in further as needed with more formal cites to third parties, if the various citations already in the article and kindly noted in Dee Noble's response does not suffice, and if the opportunity is provided then. Again, and until then, HAPPY NEW YEAR! Artmaestro (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- — Artmaestro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. We're still celebrating New Years but I did quickly add to the article this cite http://www.cityofventura.net/files/file/comm-service/SOTAMarApr2011(1).pdf (this is the official City of Ventura issued periodical "State of the Arts" (this issue March-April 2011), and each artwork and poetry depicted in this particular photo of the debut of this public exhibition space is the artwork and poetry of Nicole (and in addition, the article lists Nicole as one of three artists chosen by the City of Ventura for this debut of public display space). While I will respond further once the holidays are over, I just wish to list the following for your consideration:
- The following notable accomplishments indicate that this article should not be deleted:
- 1. The artist's work has been chosen for an important City public exhibition in Ventura, California [2] REFERENCES FOR POINT 1: http://www.cityofventura.net/files/file/comm-service/SOTAMarApr2011(1).pdf (this is the official City of Ventura issued periodical "State of the Arts" (this issue March-April 2011), and each artwork and poetry depicted in this particular photo of the debut of this public exhibition space is the artwork and poetry of M. Nicole van Dam (and in addition in the article itself Nicole van Dam is listed as one of three artists chosen by the City of Ventura for this debut of public display space); this City is known as a City having many artists, so there were many artists that this City could have selected, but they selected the subject of the article.
- 2. The artist's work has been on ongoing public display at a different city's (Santa Barbara) City Hall (also a different county)(i.e., two different cities have recognized this artist) for approximately 5 years, and has been written up in Newspapers of that area.[3]
- REFERENCES FOR POINT 2: See, e.g., "Montecito Journal" article Vol. 11, Issue 21, 2005 ; there are actual photos of the City Hall display at City Hall at the artist's website at http://Wishes.bz
- 3. The artist created a mural at the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts that is part of the Smithsonian Institution slide collection [4].
- REFERENCES FOR POINT 3: see also Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
- 4. The artist has a children's book she wrote and illustrated,[5] and this children's book has been animated (for the iPhone, iPad etc products) by the same company that does the DreamWorks children's books (such as Shrek and Smurfs); it is also important to note that this animated version of Nicole's children's book was narrated by a famous BBC personality;[6]
- REFERENCES FOR POINT 4: You can see Nicole's children's book online and see excerpts of the inside of the book at either http://IncaDink.com or you can use the Look Inside feature on Amazon at http://www.amazon.com/Inca-Dink-Great-Houndini-Magician/dp/1453780548/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1325526193&sr=8-3 ; Nicole's book was animated (for the iPhone, iPad etc products) by the same company that does the DreamWorks children's books (such as Shrek and Smurfs); it is also important to note that this animated version of Nicole's children's book was narrated by a famous BBC personality; http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/inca-dink-the-great-houndini/id379216706?mt=8 (at this iTunes page click on the blue colored "More" link and you will see the credits including the artist's name as author, illustrator and narrator, as well as the well-known BBC personality listed as the narrator)
- 5. The artist is internationally licensed, with international collectors, and has been written up in collector newsletters [7]
- REFERENCES FOR POINT 5: An example of one the artist's many international licenses with an international collector community is the Harmony Ball Company; M. Nicole van Dam's listing as an artist for the Harmony Ball Company (as well as a brief biography) can be found at http://www.harmonyball.com/artists.asp and has been highlighted in "The Queen's Quarterly" Collector Newsletters in the years 2006-2007 (Queen's Quarterly collector newsletter found on the web at http://www.harmonykingdom.com/history/1995royalwatch.htm; examples of how licensed products are shown USING THE ARTIST'S NAME as part of the description can be seen at http://www.hermannsgifts.com/shop/productDetail.asp?pid=855 and at http://www.julesenchantinggifts.com/jar/sparrow.shtml; another example of different international license agreement and how items are sold again using the artist's name is at http://www.ebay.com/itm/Artist-Nicole-van-Dam-Venice-Gondolier-12-Glass-Tray-/220493539143 ; please also see http://www.fernsgarden.com/house/laser-engraved-524/drink-coasters-608/hummingbird-1245.aspx which shows that Nicole's name and bio is prominently placed on the reverse side of this coaster; in addition you can search either Amazon or Ebay on any given day and find products sold using the artist's name as part of the description; a different sort of license would be of M. Nicole van Dam's narration as well as illustrated children's book is with iStoryTime which can be found at http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/inca-dink-the-great-houndini/id379216706?mt=8 ; see also http://artstudio.bz for images of various licensed products sold internationally. With all these works being sold using the artist's name, it is quite reasonable that people who buy (or are gifted) these products will wish to look up the artist on Wikipedia to learn more.
- 6. If you do a Google Books search or a search on Amazon you will find many books by this artist (new and used), and if you use the Amazon site you can use their Look Inside Feature to actually see inside the books.
- REFERENCES FOR POINT 6: Search on Google Books or http://Amazon.com or http://Ebay.com or http://Google.com for the artist's name, and many listings come up at various sellers of various items bearing the artist's name, including books.
- 7. Several independent news articles and references from several periodicals (including government issued material) referring to the artist and supporting the assertions in the article are cited in the Article (in addition to those listed in this protest), so there are outside sources appropriate to an artist. I think it is also important to note that not everything covering an artist career is readily available on the internet, especially if the events occurred before the internet became widely used. Not all archives are up to date, for example. However, the artist's website does provide photos of openings, exhibits, news coverage, etc., in two different formats, at http://artimagination.hypermart.net/wordpress1/?flagallery=memories-make-the-world-go-round#/2 (this might be a bit dizzying so the second one that follows might be a better source for this purpose)and at http://artimagination.hypermart.net/wordpress1/?page_id=257 Again, I will supplement this response if needed, thank you for the opportunity.
- REFERENCES FOR ITEM 7: http://www.sbcc.edu/art/website/index.php?page=115 ; Ventura County Star "What's Happening at Local Galleries and Museums" Friday February 4 2011 and Friday February 18, 2011, etc.; "Montecito Journal" article Vol. 11, Issue 21, 2005; "Santa Barbara NewsPress" Jan 29, 2006; http://www.cityofventura.net/files/file/comm-service/SOTAMarApr2011(1).pdf; Santa Barbara County Arts Commission site at http://www.sbartscommission.org/exhibitions/galleries.html (official government site listing the Santa Barbara City Hall gallery and listing and providing a link to M. Nicole van Dam); please see also “Santa Barbara Independent” newspaper http://www.independent.com/search/?query=nicole+van+dam&x=0&y=0; see also October 2005 and November 2004 articles in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal covering Nicole’s artist receptions at the Art for Living Gallery, respectively, in the Santa Ynez Valley, California (http://www.syvjournal.com/ (includes also a photograph of the artist); see also Scene & Heard in Santa Barbara February 9, 2006 and AOL Reporter March 2006; see also January 2006 Santa Barbara Associates Newsletter "An Interview with M. Nicole van Dam" (http://www.santabarbaraassociates.org/newsletter.html shows current site of that organization); and more references will be provided after the holiday or as requested by this review board.
- I hope that this will be helpful all around. I do have more than this to add to protest the deletion of the page, so thank you for this bit of extra time while we celebrate New Years, and again, all the best to all of you!
- Please let me know how we might improve this page or what additional information you might wish, in addition to the various changes we've made since the issue arose December 28. Artmaestro (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Revised Again21:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Wow...TLDR, anyone? Anyway, I'm neutral here, but the article was pretty obviously written by a handful of people connected to the artist. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 21:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I also am a frequent Wikipedia user but don't do editing. I was given one of the artist's glass plates as a present - it came with a card having her name - I looked her up and out of curiousity came to this page. I want to weigh in, for what it is worth, to say that if 2 different cities have recognized this artist, shouldn't Wikipedia? If the artist is reading this - I love the plate! Make more!66.10.94.35 (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC) — 66.10.94.35 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I removed plagiarized material, redundant material, press release material, material unsupported by its references, the wordy and repeated references that were arguments for keeping the article rather than references (references are sources, not arguments), and advertisements for the van Dam's merchandise. It is somewhat readable now.
TLDR, above, apparently stands for "Too Long, Didn't Read." I suspect they mean both the article on van Dam (way too long and the references were unreadable) and your post above, but maybe they don't. I do. Pseudofusulina (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- I was only referring to the post above (and the ones below, lol). Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 11:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- KEEP: References provided by artmaestro (especially artmaestro nos. 1,2,3,5 and 7 above)(however verbose) show article satisfies several elements of both WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST by indicating government collections as well as corporate/hospital collections and public exhibition. These assertions appear evidenced by government created websites and regional newspapers.[8] Furthermore, WP:DP states at top of page state that all deletions are "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." I think a fulcrum issue for some editors in this instance might be that licensing history, however extensive and regardless if evidenced by the article, is not specifially clearly addressed in WP:ARTIST (or other) guidelines in the WP:DP. I believe national/international licensing history should expressly be part of the WP:ARTIST or other guidelines, because such extensive licensing (as indicated by the references in artmaestro number 5 above) provides the artist ongoing national (and in this case international) coverage. Licensing history also evidences that independent 3rd party manufacturers feel an artist notable enough to use the artist's name on articles that manufacturer develops and manufactures, which is a financial and reputation risk to the manufacturer. For example, any product development requires a manufacturer to expend resources making molds, prototypes, etc. Simply stated, a manufacturer must find the artist notable to pay money to use the artist's name and art on their products, so therefore significant licensing history in and of itself should be support of notability. Also at least one gallery (note - this gallery is associated with the school at which the subject of the article is a professor) refers to this artist in a list of artists as being nationally recognized.[9] While in some instances this might be of questionable import (given the affiliation of the artist with the school), in this instance such recognition by the artist's peers might be especially meaningful because this particular school itself Santa Barbara City College was in 2011 the only school in California to be named as one of the ten finalist community colleges in the nation by the Aspen Institute's College Excellence Program.[10]. I also find the animated children's book project that was created using an established talent and animator helpful to the article's case - see artmaestro no. 4 above. All artmaestro's points above show a consistent track record and history of national, peer and manufacturer recognition, and even if one does not agree that the standard of WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG is precisely met here (I think the standards of each are satisfied weel enough here), nonetheless a solid argument can be made that "common sense" as noted in the WP:DP could be used to support keeping the article, because licensing simply is not yet expressly addressed in the WP:DP. If there is doubt, this is an article that should NOT be deleted.208.127.109.195 (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC) — 208.127.109.195 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- DELETE -- BLP There do not appear to be non-self generated sources about this artist. The community college expends more effort on her teaching of entrepreneur classes than on her art. Her notability as a licensed artist should come from a reliable source, not the simple assertion.
The sources in the article are general links to websites, links to the artist's own websites and sales of products, or the gallery listing that is simply a link to a mention of her as an "Ojai artist." None of these establish notability under wikipedia guidelines.
As this is a BLP and it does not establish the subject's notability, I think it should be deleted. If reliable third-party sources, stating the artist's notability, are found, the article can be recreated. Pseudofusulina (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- In response to the prior post, I would like to add that a person could reasonably disagree with Pseudofulina's assessment: For example, http://www.sbcc.edu/art/website/index.php?page=115 does show support of this well-known school for the artist AS an artist. Moreover, the official City of Ventura government site http://www.cityofventura.net/files/file/comm-service/SOTAMarApr2011(1).pdf not only lists the artist as an artist but shows the artist's artwork and poetry on display at an important new pubic venue for that City. Similarly, the Santa Barbara County Arts Commission site at http://www.sbartscommission.org/exhibitions/galleries.html is an official government site listing the Santa Barbara City Hall venue (the artist's art for several years has been hanging in the City and Councilmen's offices at that City Hall) and this goverment site provides a link to the artist's website. Also, I am sorry to have included the links to products in the Article to the extent they muddied the issue - please know that all links to products were intended to show national coverage by virtue of licensing, which also establishes national recognition and hence notability, as well as allow people to peer inside books to enjoy some free content, but I can appreciate why these links might be misunderstood. I therefore respect and defer to Pseudofulina's elimination of the product references from the article. However, the product references showing many manufacturers have licensed the artist's artwork should not be entirely disregarded from this discussion of notability, etc. because of the national coverage the licenses provide at tradeshows, etc. Ironically, much of the concern here seems to be that the article is solely promotional - this is ironic because my intuition is that people are more likely to visit Wikipeda and see the article AFTER they have made a purchase than before making a purchase. As an adjunct to that thought, any traffic that does not go to Wikipedia in search of information on the artist will inevitably go to the artist's own website at http://Wishes.bz, so at least arguably an artist with an extensive website might benefit from NOT having an article on Wikipedia, which diverts traffic. In any event, please also know that I will respect whatever decision is handed down, and trust that the correct decision will be made. I think I have done all I can, and actually another commentator above who voted Keep expressed any argument to be made in wiki-speak far better than I am able to do. Thank you all very much for your generosity of time and spirited work on behalf of WIkipedia, and for those that gave me guidance, thank you as well Artmaestro (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Your first link lists her name, but says nothing about her other than she is faculty at a community college. The second link says she is from Ojai and part of a single group installation, but also says nothing about her. The third link only mentions her name, then hyperlinks to a product sales page. Just repeating in response.
- I don't see what an artist benefiting from not having a wikipedia article has to do with notability.
- This article does not meet guidelines for BLPs on wikipedia because it fails to provide reliable and neutral references about the notability of the subject. Pseudofusulina (talk) 23:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Despite all the impassioned comments above, this subject does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for artists. I have spent some time looking for anything which would count as a reliable source to support the retention of the article but have come up blank.--CharlieDelta (talk) 09:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 03:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. I hate to do this when there has been so much written here from people who want the article to be kept, but it looks like it is a little WP:TOOSOON for Ms. van Dam to have a Wikipedia article. I see some evidence of local notability from the references provided above, but not yet the level that our notability guidelines require. Additionally, a search on Google Books turned up books by her, but no significant coverage about her, and I didn't find anything on Google News or Scholar. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Save your tears for real editors. Most of the baloney above was written by the subject herself. See my note at top of this AfD. EEng (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I know we are all busy with our own projects on-wiki, but that doesn't mean that it's ok to bite the newcomers. Creating an article about yourself is a common beginner's mistake, and trying your best to stop that article from getting deleted is a natural reaction. Writing does take work, after all, and depending on the outcome of this discussion that work could disappear. There's a quote on this which I think fits well here (found here - diff): "It's my belief that most productive Wikipedians first arrive at the site wanting to do something that is against WP policy -- advance a point of view, cover something that doesn't meet the notability guideline, etc. We also often bring baggage from other Internet sites where the social norms or policies permit different kinds of behavior -- social networking activity, attacks, canvassing, what have you. None of this makes us bad people, just people who have not yet fully absorbed the Wikipedia ethos." I know this was true for me when I first came here. Maybe it's true for the users commenting here too? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 10:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Save your tears for real editors. Most of the baloney above was written by the subject herself. See my note at top of this AfD. EEng (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Unlike Mr. Strad (just above) I have no qualms at all about recommending delete when people waste the time of actual editors spamming not only article space, but AfD as well, with such an enormous quantity of blather, having spent not a moment to understand what is going on here. Doesn't meet ARTIST. EEng (talk) 07:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- As an additional argument for deletion, I think we should consider that anyone who employs the word gifted as the article's subject (nom-de-wiki: Artmaestro) does above, to wit, "people who buy (or are gifted) these products will wish to..." should have his or her article deleted on sight -- in fact, there should be a special CSD category just for this. EEng (talk) 08:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Tone it down please. Just because a piece has COI issues doesn't give anyone the right to go off. Carrite (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, EEng, take it easy. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 20:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- I wish there was an example BLP, short BLP with a few good references, say a bare link and a formatted link, that wikipedia could show authors who write their own articles and then fight to get them kept. This article looked nothing like an article on wikipedia. I suggested the author read some of the DYKs on the main page to see what short articles on wikipedia look like, but that didn't seem to help. I understand EEng's irritation, while agreeing it did not help. Pseudofusulina (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, EEng, take it easy. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 20:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Tone it down please. Just because a piece has COI issues doesn't give anyone the right to go off. Carrite (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- As an additional argument for deletion, I think we should consider that anyone who employs the word gifted as the article's subject (nom-de-wiki: Artmaestro) does above, to wit, "people who buy (or are gifted) these products will wish to..." should have his or her article deleted on sight -- in fact, there should be a special CSD category just for this. EEng (talk) 08:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable artist, self-publicity. Tone and evident purpose of article is advertising; since User:Artmaestro is stated on her user page to be the subject, most of the discussion here (above) is moot. Clear delete. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete doesn't meet the criteria described at WP:ARTIST. Mynameislatesha (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - The spread of Google hits for "NICOLE VAN DAM" + "ART" is impressive, but I am not spotting any material published independently dealing with her and her work substantially. I don't have a doubt that she is an artist of significance; spotting the published sources necessary to demonstrate "notability" in Wikipedia terms is quite another matter... I wish rather than the over-long pleas above, defenders of the article had come forward with two or three or four biographical articles, page cites from books on her field published by others, etc. If you do have those citations, please get those out here as quickly as possible — that's what people are looking for in these debates. Carrite (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think we'll find them, and it's not for want of trying. A naive Google search shows a heap of hits, but a pruned search gives just 27 results, none of them useful. The nearest was perhaps the commercial puff for her art on Kindle but that's far below WP standard.
- I then tried a search for "review" + "Inca Dink, The Great Houndini" - again, Google suggests 114,000 hits, but there are really only 72 of them, and once again there's nothing like a proper RS review among them. No evidence we can use at all. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
KEEP I agree with the prior comment (from User 208.127.109.195) that the "fulcrum issue for some editors in this instance might be that licensing history, however extensive and regardless if evidenced by the article, is not specifially clearly addressed in WP:ARTIST (or other) guidelines in the WP:DP." I like Users Chiswick Chap and Carrite, etc. did several searches, and like them found thousands of hits. I read a random selection of these hits and found several of newspaper articles from various regions that show the artist's works and name through her licensing has broad reach, such as in http://www.bestofneworleans.com/gambit/art-by-the-plateful/Content?oid=1252490 . This licensing reach of the artist's art and name, along with the animated book narrated by a fairly well-known voiceover talent, makes me agree with the conclusion of User 208.127.109.195 that this page should not be deleted. WP:DP (at the very top of the page) gives us permission to look outside the box, when it states all deletions are "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." User 208.127.109.195 also noted http://www.sbcc.edu/art/website/index.php?page=115 which states (at the bottom, below the list of artists named in the gallery exhibit) that "On view will be a wide array of media and styles by these noted artists whose works have been seen nationally as well as regionally." I also reviewed the edits of the article and saw that at least four books by the artist were deleted in this edit, including "Through the Artists Eyes" and 3 books starting with the title SuperQuick. I did some extra digging on "Through the Artist's Eyes" and found that it seems to be primarily a Kindle book listed as "Thoughts, Illustrations and Poems of Love" and has "Through the Artist's Eyes" as a parenthetical, and is currently ranked 84 among Kindle Books on Artists according to its Amazon listing. The SuperQuick Books are books in traditional print, possibly self-published. I did not add any of these four books back into the article, as I do not wish to enter into an edit war, but perhaps their deletion should be reconsidered? I also found another book by the artist "The Art of M. Nicole van Dam" on the Kindle that isn't mentioned in either the earlier or current version of the article. My random checking of search results also found that several of the artist's books are for sale on the Barnes & Noble website as well as Amazon. I also agree with User Mr. Stradivarius that frightening away people from participating here should be avoided, and I would add that actually behavior such as bite the newcomers can do more harm to this site than leaving stray page that perhaps might need to be deleted 66.10.94.35 (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - I didn't so much as find "thousands of hits" as find that Google wrongly predicted there'd be thousands, but when I looked there really weren't many, even Google's algorithms aren't perfect. Your pleading to be nice to the newbies is good of you, but the truth here is that the article would be out of AfD by now if anyone (including me) had been able to find just two or three reliable, independent reviews talking about her work - but we couldn't locate any, and believe me we tried hard. If you know of some, all you have to do is create a "Reception" section in the article, add some quotes from reviewers, cite them, and all will end happily. Very likely, in a few years' time, that will be easy to do. Right now, it seems to be WP:TOOSOON. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment - Her academic employer promotes her thus: "... she has a wealth of experience in providing business, financial and legal expertise in the areas of multimedia, internet and e-commerce, music, entertainment, advertising, merchandising, branding and licensing, mergers and acquisitions, securities matters and public offerings, and various other facets of starting a thriving enterprise." http://www.scheinfeld.sbcc.edu/scheinfeld_center_info/professors/professor_Nicole.html"
Doesn't support an article about her as an artist to WP standards, rather makes it appear the WP article is intended as adding to a 'thriving enterprise', particularly considering the primary web presence found in a thorough search is entirely sales oriented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.137.96 (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Weak Keep Needs to be rewritten to sound less like an advertisement, but just barely enough media coverage to be notable IMO. Beyond495 (talk) 13:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- What media coverage? The only links are to organizations affiliated to the subject or her own works. Betty Logan (talk) 14:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- There were a few things on there from the Montecito Journal. Beyond495 (talk) 14:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Which are suspiciously missing an author; probably articles by the subject herself if the rest of the references are anything to go by. Betty Logan (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Clearly many people would love to keep this article. However there still isn't anything much like a RS. Fails WP:GNG; fails WP:BIO; ILIKEIT and SHESMYFRIEND aren't reasons; delete remains the only option. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
- ^ http://www.amazon.com/Tempo-M-Nicole-van-Dam/dp/1453802118
- ^ http://www.cityofventura.net/files/file/comm-service/SOTAMarApr2011(1).pdf (this is the official City of Ventura issued periodical "State of the Arts" (this issue March-April 2011), and each artwork and poetry depicted in this particular photo of the debut of this public exhibition space is the artwork and poetry of M. Nicole van Dam (and in addition in the article itself Nicole van Dam is listed as one of three artists chosen by the City of Ventura for this debut of public display space); this City is known as a City having many artists, so there were many artists that this City could have selected, but they selected the subject of the article
- ^ See, Santa Barbara County Arts Commission site at http://www.sbartscommission.org/exhibitions/galleries.html (official government site listing the Santa Barbara City Hall as an art venue and listing and providing a link to M. Nicole van Dam; no photo of Nicole's work on exhibit is provided at that site but there are actual photos of the City Hall display at City Hall at the artist's website at http://Wishes.bz ); see also e.g., "Montecito Journal" article Vol. 11, Issue 21, 2005 ;
- ^ see also Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
- ^ you can see the book online and see excerpts of the inside of the book at either http://IncaDink.com or you can use the Look Inside feature on Amazon at http://www.amazon.com/Inca-Dink-Great-Houndini-Magician/dp/1453780548/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1325526193&sr=8-3
- ^ http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/inca-dink-the-great-houndini/id379216706?mt=8 (click on the blue-colored "More" link and you will see the artist's name as well as the BBC personality listed as the narrator)
- ^ An example of one the artist's many international licenses with an international collector community is the Harmony Ball Company; M. Nicole van Dam's listing as an artist for the Harmony Ball Company (as well as a brief biography) can be found at http://www.harmonyball.com/artists.asp and has been highlighted in "The Queen's Quarterly" Collector Newsletters in the years 2006-2007 (Queen's Quarterly collector newsletter found on the web at http://www.harmonykingdom.com/history/1995royalwatch.htm; examples of how licensed products are shown USING THE ARTIST'S NAME as part of the description can be seen at http://www.hermannsgifts.com/shop/productDetail.asp?pid=855 and at http://www.julesenchantinggifts.com/jar/sparrow.shtml; another example of different international license agreement and how items are sold again using the artist's name is at http://www.ebay.com/itm/Artist-Nicole-van-Dam-Venice-Gondolier-12-Glass-Tray-/220493539143 ; you can search either Amazon or Ebay on any given day and find products sold using the artist's name as part of the description; a different sort of license would be of M. Nicole van Dam's narration as well as illustrated children's book is with iStoryTime which can be found at http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/inca-dink-the-great-houndini/id379216706?mt=8 ; see also http://artstudio.bz for images of various licensed products sold internationally
- ^ See artmaestro nos 1,2,3 and "Montecito Journal" article Vol. 11, Issue 21, 2005
- ^ http://www.sbcc.edu/art/website/index.php?page=115
- ^ http://www.sbcc.edu/athletics/sbcc_named_top_10_school.php