Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shelly Silver

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shelly Silver

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

Seems to fail

WP:CREATIVE. This article is unreferenced and reads like a puff piece, so it needs work if it isn't deleted first. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The confusion with Sheldon silver's nickname does not help with the search, but I cannot find substantive coverage under any of the applicable categories. This is reflected in the
WP:SPAMmy contents of the article.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 00:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep. Her work does appear to be in the permanent collections of MOMA and the Pompidou, which should be enough for
WP:CREATIVE #4d. And I cleaned out some of the spammier parts of the article and improved the sourcing. But I really wasn't able to find much. For someone who really is of the appropriate stature, I should be able to find more press than a bare mention of her name in local news coverage of a MOCA show (in the article) and an announcement of a showing at a Belgian art center that doesn't even have its own Wikipedia article [1] [2]. There's a little more press on the artist's web site but slim pickings there too. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. Moma caught my eye too. It's not clear that her work has actually been exhibited there, as the article claims. The Moma file page simply says that they own 1 video from Silver and that it was gifted by Silver. I'm not an expert in the ways of the art world, but it seems that "important" works are not usually acquired in this fashion. Is such self-gifting sometimes a "padding" device for creating an association with a recognized institution, or is there still an internal vetting process that would reject non-notable works? Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, | Uncle Milty | talk | 22:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After doing some checking, it appears that simply having a work(s) in the permanent collection of a museum (as opposed to having that work exhibited) is not necessarily notable. For example, this article indicates that a common complaint by donors is that museums relegate their works "to various storage facilities where they sit and gather dust" and that "a museum may accept...a painting by a promising young artist...but that artist's career may fizzle, and they may fade into permanent obscurity (along with their art)". In other words, it is not unusual for museums to
hedge on the possible future fame or notability of an artist. In this case, it seems that that notability has yet to be established. Agricola44 (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC).[reply
]

Keep -- exhibitions by ~~MOCA,~~ MOMA, and Pompedieu Centre are sufficient to me to meet WP:CREATIVE -- presumably if she's had art exhibited by these three powerhouses, she has a laundry list of less important museums as well. Put with the chair/Assoc. prof. at Columbia University (Assoc. Prof. is generally not enough at a second-tier school, but at a school like Columbia it can be enough), and I think that she passes the bare. To reply to Agricola44 (whom I rarely disagree with, but do here), I agree that most art owned by major museums, even by significant artists, is in storage, but generally museums' purchase histories tend to reflect the notability of the artist at least at the time. A single work purchased by one museum without other documentation of success may not be enough, but I think that a pattern of collection by significant museums definitely reflects a perceived promise of notability, which seems enough for here. In any case, such purchases are documented and catalogued and thus help to establish the reliability of articles that can be written about the artists, which is the main reason why we have notability guidelines. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It sounds like you've likewise been unable to confirm that her work has actually been exhibited by
hedging on any future notability that Silver might have, say through WP :). Best, Agricola44 (talk) 16:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC).[reply
]

Hi Agricola -- you're right, I was sloppy and trusted the article for confirmation and didn't read your comment closely enough. My bad. But I can confirm that at least at the MOMA her work has been exhibited at least once: [3] -- I don't know if it's a one-time exhibition or a special screening of something that was in an exhibit for a longer time, but it does show that it's not just a film that they accepted, stuck in an archive, and no one has ever seen. I think that this plus the university position (and a Guggenheim Fellowship 2005) puts it above the bar. I've struck out the MoCA (Museum of Chinese in America) comment above because, while it contributes to notability, I don't think it's a big star moment the way MOMA and Pompedieu are. She's certainly not a mega-star, but definitely with the Columbia position, MOMA, and Guggenheim, clearly above the average film professor. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The MOCA that I was referring to in my comment is not Museum of Chinese in America, it is rather the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles, a major museum for which I could source an exhibit of her work. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say this is very borderline case and understand your !vote. I think I'll stay put with mine. Guggenheim certainly helps, but these fellowships are awarded to several hundred applicants every year. Best! Agricola44 (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2013 (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.