Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tal Slutzker (2nd nomination)

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 delete‎. While the Keep and the Delete views are balanced by nose count, the Delete ones correctly point out that WP:NARTIST must be read in conjunction with WP:BASIC. Giving extra weight to the P&G-based views, and discarding the clearly canvassed votes, I see a rough consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 22:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tal Slutzker

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tal Slutzker (2nd nomination)

[Hide this box]New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No significant, numerous, third-party sources can be found to support notability in general or as an artist; just a couple of interviews and one advertorial: A young artist like myriads of others. No judgement whatsoever on artistic value, this. But Wikipedia is not a complete directory of artists nor a random collection of information. -The Gnome (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Poetry, and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, and possible public relations editing by the editor responsible for placing overwhelming majority of contents into that article. Graywalls (talk) 08:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are absent really, which is unfortunate really for a quite stellar artist. I couldn't find any of his work any major museums unfortunately. I may be early days hopefully. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 11:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough there yet, could be WP:TOOSOON BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the criteria for notability of an artist (NARTIST) is "The person's work (or works) has: ... been a substantial part of a significant exhibition" (note the singular). The article lists 6 solo exhibitions and 11 non-solo exhibitions. His he.wiki article lists 20 exhibitions and 4 books. This is quite a lot. Here is an article about an exhibition he had at the Herzliya Museum of Modern Art. Here is a newspaper article about another exhibition. In order to decide that he fails NARTIST, it is necessary to decide that none of these 20 exhibitions count as "significant". This has not been done yet on this page and I'm dubious. To me he looks quite notable. Zero^talk 16:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to his exhibition at the Herzliya Museum of Contemporary Art, Slutzker had a solo exhibition at the Tel Aviv Museum of Art, Israel's largest art museum. Coverage in multiple national publications, including Walla!News, Maariv, and Ynet also satisfy the superseding WP:NBIO. Longhornsg (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A BEFORE search did not turn up much other than social media, some primary sources, interviews (primary and light weight with some questions like "What's your cat's name?" and press-release-based coverage, but no critical analysis in major art magazines or art history books. He doesn't meet WP:NARTIST either. Having a small handful of shows, even with a couple at museums is not relevant - that's just what artists do, they show their work like hundreds of thousands of other artists. A significant exhibition is being in the Venice Biennale, or Documenta, Sao Paulo Biennial, Carnegie International, or the Whitney Biennial. Appears to be a COI entry. It appears to be WP:TOOSOON for this emerging artist, perhaps in a few more years he will be ready for an encyclopedia article. Netherzone (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is simply not true that "hundreds of thousands" of artists have multiple solo exhibitions. It's not like they invite themselves, they have to be invited by a gallery which considers their work significant enough to take other works of art off the wall for a while. As for what "significant exhibition" means: who says? Looking at List of Israeli visual artists, I see many articles about artists with weaker exhibition histories. It seems that existing practice in deciding notability does not impose such high standards as you do. Zero^talk 14:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you truly never heard of vanity exhibitions? (I'm not implying the same for our subject; I have no proof of any such practice.) It's similar to vanity publishing. In the country I live, as well as in a number of countries that I have visited, many a galley earns a living or compliments its living by hosting the latest masterpieces of amateur enthusiasts. I do not think badly at all about said enthusiasts. They have every right to their activities. And they contribute to the financial well-being of galleries. But, please, don't insist that all the "thousands of exhibitions" are done by gallery invitation. 'T ain't so. -The Gnome (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Gnome is correct about the existence of vanity exhibitions, there are also thousands of pay-to-pay juried exhibits which are slightly different. An artist pays a fee to have their work considered for it, if the jury selects the artists's work, then the artist pays for shipping to and from the exhibit, and if they happen to sell work get 50% of the sales price. There are also many pay-to-play "art magazines" that are designed like actual art magazines or journals. The artist pays to have a page, or a two-page spread, or a "feature article". Native advertising and Advertorials have become wide-spread in the art world, as has Informative advertising. Netherzone (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Galleries always take a cut for artworks sold at exhibitions, that means nothing. Between 30% and 50% is normal. I'm married to an artist (albeit in a different country) so I have first-hand experience of this. Please provide your evidence that Slutzker's solo exhibitions at the Herzliya Museum of Contemporary Art and the Tel Aviv Museum of Art were anything other than normal exhibitions. If you don't have such evidence you shouldn't make assumptions. Zero^talk 01:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly sorry to say that for a Wikipedia contributor who's been around "for more than twenty years", per your user page, you demonstrate a surprising inability to understand simple prose. The whole of Netherzone's response is about the existence of vanity exhibitions. It is simply an affirmation that vanity exhibitions do exist; that is all. No mention of our subject, his exhibitions, or Israeli museums. Yet, you scold Netherzone for "making assumptions" about Slutzker. It seems you owe an apology. -The Gnome (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The editor, who is admin doesn't understand current consensus for artist Afd's. The idea that they have to invited by a gallery is complete nonsense. I don't know where that idea comes. A WP:BEFORE found nothing for what a established artist would need for an article. scope_creep^Talk 17:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I'm not making assumptions, Zero, but perhaps you are? There are several editors here with long track records of work on articles about visual artists and and who have participated in many AfD's regarding the visual arts (myself included); and are very familiar with the associated notability criteria for artists. The track record of this artist is very slim, they are at the beginning stages of their career. I can say with certainty Slutzker does not meet NARTIST. This is not a reflection on Slutzker or their work or their potential, it is simply TOO SOON. The critical art historical analysis of his work is absent, which we normally see for notable artists. In a few years once they continue to build their career, they will probably be ready for inclusion in the encyclopedia, but not now. The article can always be recreated in the future once he is further along and there is better sources available. Again, I'm not saying this to disrespect the artist nor dismiss his work. WP can't be directory or resource for promoting the hundreds of thousands (yes, that's correct) of artists in the world who have had a handful of shows. The article does not have encyclopedic value. Netherzone (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, we're back to our familiar non-argument: "Wikipedia already has many articles about artists with weaker notability evidence"! When will fellow editors understand that this is actually a proposal to move Wikipedia backwards? To make the encyclopaedia worse. -The Gnome (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, we should be strengthening the integrity and rigor of the encyclopedia, not loosening our standards back to the early 2000s. Netherzone (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a long reply to the details, but then I deleted it. I have better things to do than argue against this snarkiness, illogic and OWNership. Readers judge Wikipedia by what it contains, not by what it is silent on. In my opinion Wikipedia would be better with this article than without it, and you have not established otherwise. Zero^talk 09:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the many exhibitions, books, and other presentations seem enough for notability to exist. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exhibitions don't count. Anybody can hold an exhibition. What counts if the artists work is owned by a mainstream museum, which they are not. The books don't have any reviews. They are non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 17:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Zero, the arguements convinced me that Slutzker's works are notable and meet the notability criteria. פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk 00:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to failure of GNG. While there is one criteria of NARTIST that is met if you read it literally and narrowly, that same section says "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards....conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." This, for me, is one of those situations where the narrower SNG is delivering the wrong outcome that GNG expects. Daniel (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Likely PROMO. There are no results to be found in Gnews; what's used in the article seems to be all there is. There is no listing in the Getty ULAN [1], telling me the artist isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 01:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NARTIST which lists as its fourth criterion only that "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." His work has been a substantial part of multiple significant exhibitions (coverage from the former Channel 10 (Israel)) as required by criterion 4b. It further appears exhibitions include Herzliya Museum of Contemporary Art, Israel Museum, and Tel Aviv Museum of Art. This interview describes him as "one of the most intriguing painters working in Israel today" (Google translation), this one from Yakum Tarbut mentions visiting another of his exhibits, and this one about his poetry (not sure about whether this one is a RS). In all, clear that he passes the WP:NARTIST bar and arguably also GNG but would likely require someone more versed in Hebrew to determine that. DCsansei (talk) 11:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The links you present, DCsansei, consist of a press release announcement from the institution presenting the show therefore primary PR/PROMO; two previews based on press releases - they are not reviews, they are announcements for upcoming shows, therefore PR/PROMO; 4 is a database - back in the day we used to call these slide registries, where an artist can submit documentation of their work themselves - user-submitted or commercial gallery-submitted content; another is pure churnalism/advertorial content, thus PROMO. None of this is serious coverage. I'm not sure if the poetry one is a reliable source or more user-submitted content, it looks sort of bloggish.
All this "coverage" amounts to is that there seems to be a public relations campaign to promote the artist, which is not the same as notability or SIGCOV. Again, let me stress that my comments is not a critique the artist's potential or creativity or character whatsoever, I'm speaking from decades of experience in the field of visual arts. Some of the editors here are misunderstanding the NARTIST criteria. There are no reviews, no chapters in art history books, no track record of his work being in multiple notable museum collections.This is an emerging artist with talent and potential for a successful career ahead of him, however, it is not the purpose of the encyclopedia to promote or advertise his work. Netherzone (talk) 12:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With due respect, you are repeating the same arguments you made above which I reviewed prior to concluding that this artist likely passes the bar set in NARTIST. While you can assert that "some of the editors here are misunderstanding the NARTIST criteria", perhaps we can assume that I read the discussion above (and am literate enough to come to a reasonable understanding of the NARTIST criteria) without going back and forth with the same points repeatedly? Also, note that one of the editors you assert is misunderstanding NARTIST above is an admin so hardly a case of inexperienced editors misapplying a policy. DCsansei (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And one of the delete voters is also an admin. Having said this, it does not matter if they are an admin or not, their !vote does not hold any more weight than any other editor. Netherzone (talk) 12:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that. Was using the fact as a counterfactual to your implication that "some editors were misunderstanding" and referencing your own credentials in the arts which I may have mistakenly viewed as trying to belittle the experience of those who are voting keep. Of course, the arguments in the !votes are what matters. DCsansei (talk) 12:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources. These two sources in the External links section,[2] and [3] seem the likeliest to count towards notability. Rupples (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rupples, sorry, but I beg to differ.
Art Market Magazine (the first link in your message) is a pay-to-play publication. [4], [5], [6]. That is not how serious art magazines work, like ARTFORUM, Art in America, ArtNews, Domus, Frieze, Apollo, Art International, Modern Painters, Parkett, etc. with critical, analytical articles written by art historians. His work has not received coverage in any serious art magazine. Any artist or gallery can submit their work to Art Market Magazine, then pay a fee for space in the "magazine" once their work is "accepted" - in other words the artist or their gallery buys either half-page, whole page, 2-page spread, or "article" on their work. It's native advertising (sponsored content, branded journalism), it is an advertorial publication. It is analogous having a vanity gallery, and is not unlike predatory journal publishing in the academic world.
The second link is a modified press release - it is a preview to announce the show, it is NOT a review. It's advance marketing. It's written in future tense: "on March 12 the exhibition will be opened", etc. These types of press release-based previews are to advertise the product (the art) by the gallery. It's PR, PROMO - promotional advance advertising masquerading as journalism. This has become much more prevalent in recent years.
Again, this is not a reflection on the artist or their work, it is simply too soon in the artist's brief career for there to be serious SIGCOV on his work. Netherzone (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, missed that aspect of Art Market Magazine, so thanks for pointing it out. The Maariv source does provide a portrayal of the artist, but it's brief. Could be PR, not entirely sure, and in any event needs more coverage to pass the GNG. Rupples (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Jerusalem Post articles via Proquest give further coverage of Slutzker. This one counts towards notability.[7] His work being exhibited in two notable museums Herzliya & Tel Aviv MoA is indicative of notability. Would like to see coverage outside the Jerusalem Post. The other sources in the article/in this discussion don't cut it as far as notability is concerned, so as of now I'm neutral. Rupples (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some info and sources. SigTif (talk) 07:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See WP:PRESERVE.Baculur (talk) 10:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: not included for whatever reason at the top of the article, but the [AFD] seems to have dug up some significant coverage that has not been mentioned here. One editor notes that they found "2000, 2006 and 2011 articles from the Jerusalem Post [that] are long profile/feature articles about this artist" on Proquest. They also note that a "gNews search on his name in Hebrew [2] brings up stories about him in major Israeli dailes: Haaretz, Maariv (newspaper) and Yedioth Ahronoth" along with some shows that we have not mentioned here further reinforcing WP:NARTIST. DCsansei (talk) 12:22, 10 May 2024 (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.