Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salma Arastu

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 to delete, default to keep. That was a rather bad AfD discussion. Most participants, please contribute more policy-based arguments for or against deletion in your next AfD, and less name-calling / WP:AADD. Sandstein 16:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Salma Arastu

Salma Arastu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Subject is not notable. Arrow740 16:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The article does not establish the notability of the subject. Beit Or 17:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Doesnt look notable. There are so many artists, but they're not all notable. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Multiple Newspaper references, 30+ solo exhibitions in many different countries, around 70 total exhibitions. Work displayed in many Museums, art galleries, universities. The article is created yesterday and still under writing. What it has even right now is enough to keep the article. --- ALM 11:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Matt57 and Beit Or. -- Karl Meier 14:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per ALM. IP198 14:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 20:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not very notable. Not many sources are mentioned.--Sefringle 20:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: This is whole proceeding is a sham. For all intents and purposes this individual seems at least moderately accomplished as an artist. However, to claim that her artistic merits brought this entry into existence would be ridiculous. The entry was clearly created because she fits the category "converts to Islam". Likewise it was clearly nominated for deletion for the self same reason. How many of the editors who have commented so far have any history of editing art related entries to speak of? How many people here are qualified to comment on her notability as an artist ... which is clearly what is called for? Pardon me for commenting on the editors but this whole scene pretty much goes against everything an encyclopedia stands for. The POV war going on here is clearly reaching ludicrous proportions.PelleSmith 21:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it gets even more intricate than I imagined (see below) but that only reinforces the gist of my comment. Lets say ALM created the entry for the reason Proabivouac described, or for another reason other than the supposed fact that she is a notable artist. None of the delete voters are voting in truly good faith based upon any knowledge of her notability but are all voting as a knee jerk reaction to the fact that ALM created the entry or because of the possible advantage ALM may gain because of the entry. This type of political voting is inherently unethical and against the very premise of this encyclopedia. If Proabivouac is correct then the reaction to the entry creation is no better. Since ALM did create and has now fleshed out the entry editors need to consider the content on its merits--I'm pretty sure everyone here knows that is the basic premise of this encyclopedia. Of course I have chosen to comment on this process and not on the entry contents but then again I AM NOT VOTING here either.PelleSmith 11:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Re PelleSmith 2's comments above, this article is a side effect of the depictions of Muhammad discussion, wherein it was (falsely, though probably in good faith) argued that the most common method of "depicting" Muhammad in Islamic tradition was to write his name as a sort of logo. The search for images of this nature turned up very few examples (in fact, two) notable examples. This image, created by Salma Arastu (who also makes greeting cards), was one that didn't quite merit inclusion (although for whatever reason it's since been placed rather ridiculously on Islam.) After the image was found, ALM scientist e-mailed Ms. Arastu and asked for the rights to use the image, which, according to ALM, she granted. Then, this article was created: it exists only to support the use of the image, which itself was uploaded only to displace actual depictions of Muhammad.Proabivouac 04:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  You should in good faith consider striking your vote because even if you are correct you cannot consider deleting an entry based upon an editors motivations (however frustrating those motivations may seem).PelleSmith 11:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  BAD FAITH Assumptions: The image is in Islam article since couple of months. I created article couple of days ago. If the article is deleted even then the image will remain there. This assumption that I have created it because she a Muslim convert is also wrong. I am going to take it out from the article right now. If that helps?? Please continue having bad faith assumption.She is my mother. What about that ? --- ALM 09:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  This is so bad that this article is made Islam, anti-Islam thing. It was just a simple contribution. It is shame how badly wikipedia works these days. I have removed her convertion to Islam thing. I will not add it again too. --- ALM 09:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

She is your mother?

Like I said, ALM, you first found and uploaded the image in order to displace depictions of Muhammad, then placed it in on Islam for whatever reason (perhaps so it wouldn't be orphaned?) then created the article to make it seem notable. It's supposed to work the other way around, on all counts.Proabivouac 09:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you see inside my mind? It is such a wrong assumption. --- ALM 09:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note for closing Admin: Points so far for deletion are following

  1) Not notable: Material is written about her NY Times, The Times of India, San Jose Mercury News, Philadelphia Inquirer, by MIT Press, by Stanford University, Oxford University Press. If she is still NOT notable then tell me what is called notable? Delete half of existing wikipedia too because they are also not notable then.

  2) I created article becasue she is a Muslim convert: That has been removed from the article and I will not add it again. Even though it was a bad faith assumption.

  3) Created article becasue of a picture: That picture is in Islam article since more than a month where article is create 2 days ago. Finding link between picture and article is another bad faith assumption. Even the article is deleted the picture will remain in Islam article. --- ALM 09:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"Finding link between picture and article is another bad faith assumption."

Really? The beginnings of this discussion are accessible to all in this thread and those it followed, at a time when you didn't even know how to spell her name.Proabivouac 10:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

How you know that I am making that article to make the picture notable? It is not at all true. I do not tell lies and if I am telling one only for this article then may Allah give me death. --- ALM 10:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note for the closing Admin: Consider the following facts because this AfD is not based upon good faith:

1. No one has even bothered to use Talk:Salma Arastu to discuss the merits of the entry or the issue of notability
2. No one has tagged the entry in order to have issues of notability addressed
3. None of the voters have any history editing art related pages nor any qualifications to judge the notability of a minor artist
4. Many or most of the voters have a long history of edit warring and politicized editing on Islam related entries

Make whatever conclusion you wish but all of these facts make me firmly believe that this AfD is a sham and a mockery of the good intentions of this project to compile knowledge in a neutral capacity.PelleSmith 12:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I would say that notability has been established. The article is well sourced, and the artist seems to have a well documented career. Also, I think an article should be given a reasonable amount of time to improve, use the talk page before AfD. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- If Academic presses like MIT Press and Stanford University, Oxford University Press, as ALM says, have written about her, then she is certainly notable. --Aminz 20:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- —Celithemis 23:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Many of the sources cited are merely passing mentions, but the artist's website includes scanned clippings of substantial articles about her in several publications. That's good enough. (The long list of solo shows should be cut, though; an encyclopedia article is not a résumé.) —Celithemis 23:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Ok, now this has finally been put on the arts-related list, as it should have been in the first place, you should get some comments from editors unaware of any history & baggage on this. She seems pretty borderline to me - there are many exhibitions, but none apparently in really major galleries. The press coverage seems mostly short notices re the exhibitions, in the relevant newspaper for the city. I can't see any real coverage or analysis from significant art papers or magazines. She seems here [1] to be selling a 20 x 20 inch acrylic for $1,500; more here [2] at $1,500 to $4,200 - not really notable artist prices. It's hard to assess the book references, but neither seem to be art books. I have to say a weak delete Johnbod 00:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your points, but I think an artist can be written about enough to be notable for other reasons, without necessarily being a notable artist. The Philadelphia Inquirer story is in the Faith rather than the Arts & Entertainment section, for example, but it's still nontrivial. —Celithemis 00:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

She lives in or near Philly; I doubt that everybody who gets a profile in the Faith section of the paper is notable. But my comments were on her as an artist - the article doesn't seem to assert any other claim to notability. Johnbod 01:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both for giving this artist a look with trained eyes. Arrow740 01:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC

May be selected biography at her page (http://www.salmaarastu.com/resume.htm) might be interesting for you to look at. Also there are many Newspaper (http://www.salmaarastu.com/press.htm). Please help in improving the article too by contributing becasue art is not my subject. --- ALM 09:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep nominating an article for deletion based on the notability should only be used for uncontroversial subjects. No attempt on the talk page was ever ask for claims of notability, the article was never tagged for notability, etc. all of which shows that the afd was done in bad faith.--Kirby♥time 18:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per Proabivouac and Johnbod--ProtectWomen 07:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable--Shyamsunder 14:59, 29 April 2007 (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.