Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Itzchak Tarkay

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. BD2412 T 06:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Itzchak Tarkay

Itzchak Tarkay (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)

No RS to establish N. All sources are PRIMARY and/or PROMO sources. Theredproject (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per above - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but just saying per above for a statement that is incorrect is

WP:JUSTAVOTE. gidonb (talk) 05:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Though the article is skimpy at present, and many Google hits are from galleries that deal in his works, based on consistent descriptions across various references, Tarkay seems to qualify as a notable
  WP:ARTIST. I've long been under the impression that he was "famous" (which I know is not the same as notable). Does anyone know of non-promo sources for artists in general? —RCraig09 (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails
  WP:NARTIST. His work has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Look again! There is more to

WP:NARTIST than that! gidonb (talk) 05:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. There are plenty of nonprimary and nonpromo reliable sources. Passes
  WP:BLP concern! gidonb (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

OK Beyond ARTIST 1a also ARTIST 4c is met per article 1 above and [1]. gidonb (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment gidonb Please translate critical review in Israel's "newspaper of record" into English and add as an inline citation to the article if is adds to notability. Your link out to "The Business of Being an Artist" has no page numbers. Ditto "Common Threads: Nine Widows' Journeys Through Love, Loss, and Healing". Alfred J. Harradine referring to Tarkay as as "the great Jewish painter" doesn't add any credibility as the book is not about the subject or even art. Again, the main source of this article a a press release issued by the controversial dealer Park West Gallery and it does does not establish notability. The article has not been improved in any way since the AfD. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The statements above and opinions below conflict with

WP:NEXIST: Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article The bold is in the source for very good reasons. So we will not disregard. The book "without page numbers" is a distinguished publication, distributed by Simon & Schuster. This may be their way to publish through Google Books or some other fashion. The argument sounds desperate. gidonb (talk) 14:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete enough time has passed since this was listed at AfD that if significant coverage in independent, reliable sources exists, those sources could have been added.
  ISBN 9781454887935.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) as possibly the only artist to ever use trade dress to protect his style from being emulated in Romm Art Creations Ltd. v. Simcha International, Inc. (Tarkay won) Unfortunately, what I do find more of is PR, like "The Ultimate Graphic Designer, Itzchak Tarkay, Leads the World's New Generation of Figurative Artists, and Will Appear at Opening Exhibit and Sale at Park West Gallery. Vexations (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete doesn't seem to be enough sourcing to pass
  WP:NARTISTUnbh (talk) 12:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep this
  WP:N artist. IZAK (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Still no suitable sources have been identified that show
  WP:ARTIST, All sources used are promo. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Your statement STRONGLY conflicts with the sources brought above. Tarkay had EXTREMELY INDEPENDENT critical reviews in

WP:GNG concern. gidonb (talk) 12:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I have removed said references and put in some of the excellent

WP:NEXIST. Neither the nominator, nor the the folks who "voted" per nom followed the rules and their !votes should consequently be discounted. gidonb (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep: Noted artist, belonging to a tradition and noted for influencing others. Although most ghits relate to ongoing art for sale, these sales are incidental to the story of this artist and his art, and being ten years deceased, it is not profitable commercialism. Wikipedia needs more coverage of art and the arts generally, not less. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Long career as a professional artist, just about notable, if only for the court case. Johnbod (talk) 04:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This discussion is open already a long while and seems to be forgotten. No closure and no relisting since March 9. The keep supporters make a clear policy and guidelines-based case, based on
  WP:NEXIST, using such word as "seem" to mask the lack of serious research. I hope someone can close (or even relist) this, for a famous artist, unnecessary discussion. The most awkward argument was that great sources exist but there are in existence also lesser sources and therefore the article should be deleted. That is just not how notability works. gidonb (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep a professional artist and notable works, passes WP:ARTIST. Mahdiar86 (talk) 10:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It's now well over three months into this nomination. The keep sayers have a clear quality and quantity edge. Since March 7 nobody thought this should be deleted. It just happens that the article was cleaned from sources that do not count towards the GNG and good sources were added, indicating that many delete sayers just throw a quick look at the article and do not work by NEXIST or BEFORE. gidonb (talk) 10:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment with link. I maintain my 'keep' !vote, and add the following link, which I realize is from a gallery that sells Tarkay's work. I don't think that being from a gallery should automatically disqualify a reference.

https://www.parkwestgallery.com/the-charming-style-and-juxtaposed-colors-of-itzchak-tarkay/ —RCraig09 (talk) 04:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, RCraig09! This specific link does not add to the notability but is fine for data reference. It's not a problem. So many other sources do speak to the notability of Tarkay! gidonb (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep major artiser per Park West Gallery, with thousands of pieces sold at auction.חוקרת (Researcher) (talk) 06:08, 13 June 2022 (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.