Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Union List of Artist Names

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.

(non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Union List of Artist Names

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

Article on a database created by an editor with little or no history other than creating this and linking the database to articles - i.e. likely promotional editing. No inline sources, no independent sources at all, and a quick Google didn't find any. There are some hits for the name, but any description is always the same boilerplate presumably supplied by the source. Guy (Help!) 14:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article has been here ten years, and averages over 100 hits a day, despite commonly used names like "Getty list" apparently not redirecting. The database, which took over an older dead tree one, is now accepted as the best global source on the topic. Can this be Wikidata envy? It's hard to think of a reason for this foolish nom otherwise. The Getty list certainly shows how inadequate Wikidata is over the same area. Searches just on the official name are not good enough - at the least "ULAN", "Getty list" and "Getty List of Artist Names" need to be done. Frankly your "quick Google" technique needs improving! Here's a book source with extended coverage, another, and another, another short mention, another, and another. Johnbod (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The hit count is undoubtedly skewed by it being in the authority control template (which has several questionable entries). It's nothing to do with Wikidata envy and 100% to do with an absence of reliable independent sources. I found several of thsioe books (haven't checked them all yet) and to use [1] as an example, it's a directory entry with the same blurb as appears on various websites. Guy (Help!) 13:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, then you'd better read the others, if that doesn't take up too much of your valuable time. That one (one of the shorter ones) is not a "directory entry" but an extract from an academic book on how to get information on art. I don't know quite what coverage you think there could be on an arts-related database. Johnbod (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I read the ones I found in a search, you turned up a couple more, which I will review. It is interesting that this article seems to have been created by a spammer though. Guy (Help!) 13:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't edited since 2009, and may well have been a Getty employee, or otherwise related. But these are category-killer databases, especially as they are free, and worth articles. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The ULAN is notable, the article is factual, neutral and stable. The ULAN itself, ironcally, is actually quite useful in AfDs. Deletion of the article would serve no real purpose, and be a detriment to our readers. Vexations (talk) 02:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I just added a source; many more can be found. Ewulp (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notwithstanding dodgy authorship. Suggests a notable and significant resource. Couple of good sources, tout est bon. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:01, 5 June 2018 (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.