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. Sandstein 07:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment, in actual fact, all of the sourced content was removed, which is clearly the wrong way of going about things. I've restored the sourced information, some of which clearly had useful secondary citations. A decision at AfD should be made before the article is summarily killed.
Sionk (
talk) 19:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Weak keep, on the basis of the sources already found and incorporated. Catanzaro suffers for being largely a collaborative artist and group participant, but the review (for example) by Artforum singles her out from 47 participating artists. Chances are there may be other sources in Italian, Hebrew or Arabic which will be more difficult to find.
Sionk (
talk) 19:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Neutral I went through the current version and checked the references. I deleted two refs where her name did not even appear in the refs. To other refs were a little better and mentioned her work in basic, but not in-depth, detail. This is a bit borderline, and it is hard to see what is real and what is not based on the excessive COI autobiography editing by the article creator, who had the same page as his/her user page. This is right on the edge, I would be as happy to have it be deleted to have it kept.
198.58.171.47 (
talk) 05:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep I've found more sources and added them. There is a lot of discussion about her work in reliable sources so I'm saying she passes CREATIVE.
Megalibrarygirl (
talk) 23:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep per the great work done by
Megalibrarygirl in finding in-depth sources on this person and their work. Sometimes you have to look at non-English sources. --
Oakshade (
talk) 06:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep per Megalibrarygirl and Oakshade. (Sionk & Megalibrarygirl: You have my admiration. I would find it very hard to respond as coolly as you have.) —
Gpc62 (
talk) 07:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep –Article has been substantially improved to assert notability. –
Ammarpad (
talk) 07:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. The sources look more impressive than they are. For example, "
http://next.liberation.fr" is a three-sentence mention within a very long general article; "Artforum" is a one paragraph review.
Megalibrarygirl, which of the sources you;ve added do you regard as substantial coverage.? DGG (
talk ) 10:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)reply
It's a bit of a
red herring to note there are some not-great sources when there are several that are in-depth like that of the Italian Artribune and Culturame which go very in-depth about her work and her
[1][2] --
Oakshade (
talk) 17:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Article is overstuffed with sources that are mere mentions, and with material sourced to the websites of small, non-notable organizations where she participated in a project - these should be removed as primary.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 11:35, 1 December 2017 (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.