Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Tasman

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Tasman[edit]

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

Doesn't seem like a notable artist to me. He did have an story on NPR, but it seems like a pretty ephemeral human interest piece. I figured I would bring it here rather than PROD to get more feedback. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question - The field of Journalism, Advertising, and Media Studies is quite new, and the best work in the field is the most recent work. The stated goal of Wikipedia is to "bring free knowledge to everyone" so should Wikipedia include knowledge about faculty from new academic fields? Diversity23 (talk)

Response All articles have to meet our notability guidelines. There is no single metric for establishing notability, but (e.g.) six-figure YouTube hits don't really meet muster. Irrespective of how new someone's field is, that person can easily be notable with a variety of sources. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KEEP - Artist is notable. Several videos of his have gotten over 336,000 views (e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPd44Zz6etI)

A picture of his (#2 on this link) got over 300k views (http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-best-protest-signs-at-the-wisconsin-capitol) Diversity23 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree that there is insufficient prolonged coverage in secondary and tertiary sources to prove notability. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, the list of references is extensive for this article on a young contemporary artist. It's an impressive feat that in an era of dwindling newspaper coverage for the arts, Tasman's work has been the subject of numerous news stories. If the encyclopedia wants to be a good resource on all subjects, including articles like this on contemporary artists is very important. Jgmikulay (talk) 02:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SW— ^chat 21:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; exhibition in Madison Museum of Contemporary Art (MMoCA), Wisconsin, USA. --Svajcr (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'll disclose that Tasman is a colleague of mine at UWM, but part of my goal as an editor has always been to get more Wisconsin, South African, and new media artists on Wikipedia, and he is without a doubt a well-known scholar and maker in the Midwest and beyond. I think this discussion is great - mostly because it has gotten a few editors to add more information and sources to the page. Were it this tight at the start, it would unlikely have garnered the attention for deletion. Perhaps we can make a few more suggestions here for editing / requirements in order to make it more suitable, rather than deleting it outright? I'd be happy to, for example, add a few more sources and citations if needed. Though it seems to me that between the Routledge book, NPR, and several Journal Sentinel articles (although regional, this is the 14th largest paper in the country), it should be enough to show sustained interest in his work, even for the critical eye. NathanielS (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Adding to what's said above, there is a secondary source, look at Google Scholar. Someone else is writing about Marc Tasman in the context of his work. Its a short blip, but probably enough to satisfy the guidelines as it shows him "originating a significant new concept". Lord Roem (talk) 13:56, 6 April 2012 (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.