Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ho Tam (artist)
- 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Ho Tam (artist)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Ho Tam (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
self-published website of a gallery he's been directly affiliated with, one article from a smalltown community hyperlocal about one show at one non-notable local gallery in that small town, and one short blurb in a limited-circulation magazine. So the gallery profile isn't support for notability at all, while the two media sources are okay but don't add up to enough to pass GNG all by themselves.
Further, this was initially created by hijacking an existing redirect that was already in place linking to a politician of unquestionably greater notability, following which both this and the other person were moved again to disambiguated titles without any RM discussion to establish any sort of consensus that the artist's notability was actually comparable to the politician's.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more than just two hits of media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
]
Further, this was initially created by hijacking an existing redirect that was already in place linking to a politician of unquestionably greater notability, following which both this and the other person were moved again to disambiguated titles without any RM discussion to establish any sort of consensus that the artist's notability was actually comparable to the politician's.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more than just two hits of media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, the article is badly sourced, but after googling is clear that the artist is notable. Will add review in Artforum, and collections in a minuteHermann Heilner Giebenrath (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Please note that the article has been greatly improved since the deletion notice, with new sources including publications by independent scholars and galleries, and mentions of Tam's work in institutional collections and university archives. Ccshzhou (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 17:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep The artist has multiple artists books in the National Gallery of Canada, which confers notability. Fixed duplicate listings in wikidata so that authority control data appears. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, much improved during this deletion discussion, notable and well-sourced. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, The artist's artists books are collected by major institutions in the New York City region as well, including the Metropolitan Museum of Art's Watson Library; the Museum of Modern Art's library; as well as the Whitney Museum of American Art's library. This confers the artist's notability reaching beyond Canada. WinifredSandersonLee (talk) 13:33, 27 March 2023 (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.