Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia Friedman

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 and redirect to Dave_Hickey#Wasted_Words:_The_Essential_Dave_Hickey_Online_Compilation. The consensus seems to be delete, and the redirect seems a good idea at least for now. This is a soft delete. A new article by someone without conflict of interest is possible. DGG ( talk ) 23:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Friedman

Julia Friedman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment May I point out that User talk:reddogsix used just six words to attempt to delete my extensive article that I spent hours working on. Next, I would really like every editor to consider this action. Was this editor's actions really a good-faith edit? I don't believe so. Why do I think this? Because he didn't read the article. How do I know this? Because I refuse to believe that any learned person would dare call The Times Literary Supplement trivial? I am referring, of course to an extensive, lengthy, heady 2500 word article published about Julia Friedman and her 2 recent books that was just published May 27. But, perhaps this editor does not have any idea what the TLS is after-all? The TLS is only the leading international weekly for literary culture in the western world. In plain terms, the TLS is the opposite of trivial. Seriously. Next, what about giving a lecture with Dave Hickey at none-other-than the UCLA Hammer Museum? Would anyone think this is a trivial action. Most certainly not. Then what about lecturing at Stanford University? Is lecturing at Stanford University trivial, I don't think so. Is teaching at Waseda University trivial? Afterall, Waseda University is the so-called Princeton University of Japan -- where Obama is right now. Waseda is not trivial. Is publishing with Martin Kemp (art historian) about Leonardo da Vinci a trivial act? I don't think so...I could go on and on but I will not. These important sources, institutions and publishers are likely to persuade many of the learned and responsible commentators against deletion.

The following are important points to keep in mind about this significance of Julia Friedman's new wiki-page:

• I have many cited sources: The Times Literary Supplement, Observer.com, newcriterion.com etc
• This person is closely associated with many important figures: Dave Hickey, Wally Hedrick, Martin Kemp (art historian), and Alexei Remizov etc
• These sources establish notability.
• This art historian has published with many important institutions: Northwestern University Press, Warburg Institute, Artforum, Huffington Post etc
• These institutions establish notability.
• This art historian has taught with many important institutions: Waseda University, University of Tokyo, Durham University, Syracuse University, Brown University, Rhode Island School of Design, University of California, Irvine, Arizona State University, California State University, Long Beach, and Temple University etc
• These institutions establish notability.
• This page meets general notability guidelines and biography notability guidelines.
• These sources are true, verifiable, and claim significance
• These important sources and venues are likely to persuade many of the commentators against deletion.

If I can be of further assistance to any learned editor, please contact me Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 03:51, 28 May 2016 (UTC)— Wwwwhatupprrr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment - Please refrain from making WP:UNCIVIL comments and focus on the issues related to meeting/demonstrating WP:NOTABILITY. reddogsix (talk) 04:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 04:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of demonstrating above. But, since you don't want to -- or simply can't -- address any of my many significant nobility claims, let me put this single inquiry to you? Is it your belief User:reddogsix that The Times Literary Supplement is a notable authority or not? And, next, have you read the article in question to determine its credibility? If so, can you tell me anything about the contents of this invaluable article whatsoever? Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 04:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)— Wwwwhatupprrr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

First of all I never said, "The Times Literary Supplement" is not notable. I said the support was trivial. Somewhat of a difference. As far as addressing your "significant nobility claims." I'll cite only a two of many. Notability is not inherited, so your comments that, "[t]his person is closely associated with many important figures," does not establish Wikipedia WP:Notability for the individual. Neither does teaching "with many important institutions." Perhaps your inability to see those issues is clouded by what appears to be your conflict of interest (COI)? The COI stems from the use of a picture with the Metadata that would only be available from the photographer - if I am wrong please let me know. Instead of trying to go after me, how about you reread WP:Notability, including the associated sub-articles and WP:OR to clarify your understanding of what is needed per Wikipedia standards.

Oh, yes, and as far as your comment that I have not read the article goes, are you really naive enough to believe that someone with over 41K edits would do that or are you really trying to evoke a war of words by making WP:UNCIVIL comments? </sigh> reddogsix (talk) 05:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much User talk:reddogsix for being honest. Now we all can read your comments that reveal that this entire debacle isn't about notability or lack of notability, rather it is about you racking up the wiki edits. How wonderful. Hopefully not all the other wiki editors are as jaded and misguided. Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 05:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)— Wwwwhatupprrr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral for now. Independent sources seem to be only a mention in a review or so. But if this oleaginous BLP, which is likely to be an embarrassment to its subject, by a redlink spa, is to be kept it will have to be pruned of its Boosterism and puffery. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

It may interest every editor in this discussion to read the written confession of the wiki editor who started this unnecessary procedure:

"are you really naive enough to believe that someone with over 41K edits would do that [i.e. read the Julia Friedman article / and any supporting notably citation in the article]? </sigh>" reddogsix (talk) 05:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)"

Now we all can read that this entire debacle isn't about notability or lack of notability, rather it was about an editor trying racking up the wiki edits. How wonderful. --Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 05:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)— Wwwwhatupprrr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No WP:personal attacks please. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep. The subject appears notable; her recent compilations on Dave Hickey, in particular, have attracted some very significant press attention. I've had a play with the article; it's not perfect, but I'm really not seeing a justification for all the shade being thrown at it. I can understand why Wwwwhatupprrr is frustrated, here. Whatever happened to not biting the newbies? Josh Milburn (talk) 09:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't believe there is any biting of newbies here. User:reddogsix nominated an article for deletion in good faith and the article's creator came out swinging. Whether or not the article's subject is notable has nothing to do with User:Wwwwhatupprrr's incivility and bad faith accusations. I would ask that editor to recuse themselves at this point to allow a discussion to take place. As the article's creator s/he has a built-in bias and s/he has made their opinion known. Any further comments are a distraction. freshacconci talk to me 13:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree Wwwwhatupprrr should disengage, and suggested that to her/him myself. However, I strongly disagree that there has been no biting of newbies. Try to think about it from Wwwwhatupprrr's perspective. Reddogsix (in addition to tagging the page, leaving Wwwwhatupprrr a series of warnings and nominating the article for deletion) has taken it upon herself/himself to make a (wholly inappropriate) deletion request concerning the article's sole image, and has refused to engage in meaningful conversation with the article's creator, or make any sincere effort to improve the article themselves. Xxanthippe declares the new contributor's article an "oleaginous BLP, which is likely to be an embarrassment to its subject, [filled with] Boosterism and puffery", while dismissing the editor him/herself as "a redlink spa". And you remove the Wwwwhatupprrr's comments and leave misdirected warnings (Grumpy? Yes. Uncivil? Maybe, maybe not. Personal attacks? No.). All of this because someone (mistakenly) believes that the subject of the article is so obviously not notable. If I was Wwwwhatupprrr, I'd be pretty pissed off too. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to User:J Milburn. No, this "Now we all can read that this entire debacle isn't about notability or lack of notability, rather it was about an editor trying racking up the wiki edits" is uncivil and the warning was valid. freshacconci talk to me 18:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to User:Freshacconci: If you characterize my astonishment and amazement as uncivil? What do you call these comments from User:reddogsix "are you really naive enough to believe that someone with over 41K edits would do that [i.e. read the Julia Friedman article / and any supporting notably citation in the article]? </sigh>" reddogsix (talk) 05:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)". Any statement to this effect from any wiki editor is inexcusable: an editor making wiki edits without reading -- for the sake of accruing "higher wiki editorial editing numbers" -- is like the blind walking around in a forest. Seriously. Again, I repeat, '"If I was Wwwwhatupprrr, I'd be pretty pissed off too. Josh Milburn" --Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was an uncivil comment -- particularly given the context as outlined below. No offense to User:J Milburn but he is just one editor and his comment about being pissed off is just an opinion, nothing more. And I really suggest User:Wwwwhatupprrr that you back away from commenting as you are not helping your position, particularly when you are just repeating yourself. This discussion is meant to persuade other editors and the closing administrator. Your attack mode will not help. freshacconci talk to me 19:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to User:Freshacconci: Thank you again for your comments. No offense to User:J Milburn but he is just one editor who agrees with me. And no offense to you User:Freshacconci but you are one editor who disagrees with me. However, I would, in all fairness, like to strongly disagree with you on two points. First, I have indeed helped my position by clearly demonstrating that this AfD came about only because one editor was by their own admission attempting to rack up "higher wiki editorial editing numbers" for their own self-esteem. Secondly, any editor can see that "I am not repeating myself", as you claim, if you were to read my response to other good-faith editors comments below. That said, I will not mention the damaging commentary by User:reddogsix again. I promise. --Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why I am trying, I am sure these words will again either be ignored or misrepresented, but here goes. The actual quote was, " Oh, yes, and as far as your comment that I have not read the article goes, are you really naive enough to believe that someone with over 41K edits would do that or are you really trying to evoke a war of words by making WP:UNCIVIL comments?" That in the prior sentence being "not read the article." We can continue to miss the point, that is the notability of the article or continue to cloud the issue with unrelated comments. reddogsix (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to User:reddogsix: Thank you again for reaffirming your position yet again User:reddogsix even though your position was already perfectly clear: Your editorial position is that it is better to espouse editorial platitudes for the sake of accruing "higher wiki editorial editing numbers" than it is to read what is written in good-faith in wikipedia so one can make a sound judgements and suggestions. In my opinion, this is just a sad editorial position. --Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I feared, you have again misinterpreted my comments. No where do I say or have I implied what you have indicated I have. reddogsix (talk) 20:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words and the detailed recounting of the inappropriate actions directed against my good-faith contributions. Especially your conclusion: "If I was Wwwwhatupprrr, I'd be pretty pissed off too. Josh Milburn" --Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning Redirect: I've read what I can of the refs (but not the paywalled TLS). Her claim to notability (as opposed to accomplishment) is her two compilations of Hickey's writings, that's what the bulk of the article (which does not significantly vary - or need to significantly vary - from the sections in his article) is about. The primary notability is thus his, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, and in the absence of other evidence of notability for Friedman, a redirect to Dave_Hickey#Wasted_Words: The Essential Dave Hickey Online Compilation appears justified. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 16:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Hydronium for your comments. Is this the appropriate space to address the accuracy of your comments? Your comments appear from a distance intuitively correct, but they are, under closer inspection, simply misinformed. For example, you state "Friedman's "notability should not be inherited" from Hickey. That comment would sound reasonable enough for any uninitiated reader, but it is plain wrong. Why do I say this? Because, once you examine the primary literature you will discover the truth about the 2 books you mention; rather than simply rely upon your convention and assumed wisdom, i.e. that already famous men have all the good ideas. In fact, Wasted Words and Dust Bunnies originated with Julia Friedman. These books did not originate with Dave Hickey. Hickey says as much every chance he gets, "Friedman called me to ask my permission to publish." This is a vitally important point. This accurate insight means that you have the notability question completely backwards: Hickey/Wasted Words/Dust Bunnies is drawing upon the inheriting notability of Julia Friedman's learning and insights. In plain terms, the notability of these two books rests NOT with "Hickey" or "Hickey's words", but rather, these 2 books reveal (i.e. Julia Friedman's) keen observations about (as she clearly states on the back cover for all to read): "these digital writings highlight the impact of digital technology on culture." The recent reviewer in The Times Literary Supplement goes to great lengths to expose Friedman's profound insights. Moreover, Friedman's books critically examine and extend the discourse in the New Media discipline, which Ai Weiwei's Blog: Writings, Interviews, and Digital Rants publication began in 2006 — a discourse and dialogue that the rapidly aging Hickey is completely unaware of. --Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wwwwhatupprrr. An examination of the WP:PRIMARY literature is not usable for establishing notability. What Wikipedia requires are reliable secondary sources — what others say about her rather than what she says about others — and most of the references do not establish her notability:

This leaves the Java Magazine and Times Literary Supplement sources.

The 4/6 - Java article is mostly sourced from a WP:PRIMARY interview with her, but there is some additional information. It provides less establishment of notability for Friedman than Hickey or the book(s) (WP:NBOOK).

The 14 -- TLS article is paywalled and I can't access it. Now while it is quite possible that the TLS article covers her contribution significantly and qualitatively, that'd still be more or less one independent source that does.

The primary sources might show she's accomplished, however in terms of secondary source notability it's almost WP:BLP1E, where her notable "event" is the production of these associated books. For NBOOK, there's probably enough, but it's not clear that this requires one or more separate articles rather than remaining integrated (and expanded if required) at Dave Hickey.

My response above was in part an invitation to actually establish her distinct notability. What might help this (noting that per Java, "Wasted Words is the complete, unedited transcript of [Hickey's] posts, conversations and threads...", and that somebody had to contact somebody regarding permission to publish) could be some of the following:

1. A quote and/or summary from the TLS where Hawkes discusses Friedman's contribution to Dust Bunnies qualitatively (and not just that it happened and how). The current TLS mention in the article in no way establishes notability for Friedman.
2. Reliable source evidence from the TLS or elsewhere discussing how these books and/or Friedman's other work "extend the discourse in the New Media discipline" (although if on the Hickey books then that may be more NBOOK against those)
3. Evidence of critical appraisal in reliable sources of Beyond Symbolism and Surrealism or her other works.
4. Evidence of citation of her works.

Alternatively or also, show that secondary reliably sourced evidence already provided meets one or more criteria of WP:NAUTHOR, WP:NACADEMIC, or similar. Or show that she's won a notable award or that there's ample coverage of her outside the context of these two books and thus she clearly meets WP:ANYBIO (and WP:GNG). In short (and about time): Show, don't tell. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to Hydronium Hydroxide: Thank you for your lengthy response above and invitation "to actually establish [Friedman's] distinct notability." I am not sure where to begin given my exhaustion. Afterall, your efforts above on our behalf are greatly appreciated. But I shall be brief: Julia Friedman, like many people living today, wears many hats. In this instance, I believe that she is a notable (a) art historian, (b) critic, (c) curator, and (d) educator/expert. In other words, she is not simply an art historian. (1) That said, in this AfD I have recently posted three more notable peer reviews in art history which I hope you will examine, which include many paragraphs from TLS. Please let me know if you cannot find this material. (2) As a critic, Friedman regularly contributes to Artforum, the leading US contemporary art magazine -- which by itself appears good enough for Friedman's colleague Catherine Taft. Additionally, her notable accomplishments as a critic have been recognized by invitation (museums do not do "peer review" articles in journals) like the Hammer Museum, SITE Santa Fe, and Scottsdale Museum of Contemporary Art to name a few. This is earned notability, not inherited notability. (3) As a curator, I am currently working on Friedman's international exhibitions section. (4) As an educator and expert her breath of knowledge and experience is, understandably, currently being curtailed in the article. (5) What I meant in my comment above "once you examine the primary literature" was the Dave Hickey and Julia Friedman articles themselves, which both state: "Eighteen months later, Friedman suggested [to Hickey] a project documenting his experience." In other words, to redirect Julia Friedman to Dave Hickey does a disservice to this woman's (A) lone -- (B) and entire -- accomplishments. Many other editors, too, rightly recognize the injustice any redirect would imply. I hope to address more of your insights when time permits. --Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional Reply to Hydronium Hydroxide: Dear Hydronium, I have discovered another -- more in-depth and precise -- full-length article, entitled Julia Friedman's Artistic Vision, also by Jenna Duncan, about Julia Friedman in JAVA magazine from December 2012. I would like to share it with you. It is a pre-Hickey extended article. I discovered the lengthy article here...on this webpage. It has alot of interesting material which you enjoy. More information about this article can be found in the article's TALK page. --Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The subject appears notable. --Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Obviously notable.--Ipigott (talk) 07:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Ipigott: how is she "obviously" notable? freshacconci talk to me 13:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with Josh Milburn above. The article subject is notable. Her work regarding Dave Hickey, in and of itself has received significant coverage from independent reliable resources. The sources regarding the Dave Hickey works are listed here: [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5] are more than enough to show Freidman's notability. She of course passes WP:GNG, Plus there are even more sources within the article that also significantly cover the article subject as well. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 08:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Dave_Hickey#Wasted_Words:_The_Essential_Dave_Hickey_Online_Compilation. I tried to search for independant reviews of mentions of her work with no context, related to "The_Essential_Dave_Hickey_Online_Compilation" and didn't find it. As an art historian and writer, her books and she have to have a notable peer reviews to support the notability claim. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Arthistorian1977 and thank you for joining this AfD. I am sorry you were unable to find "independant reviews of mentions of her work" given that Julia Friedman, like many people living today, wears many hats. For the purposes of this discussion, I do believe that Julia Friedman is a notable (a) art historian, (b) critic, (c) curator, and (d) educator/expert. In other words, I believe she is not simply an art historian - even though that alone is a noble profession. That said, in this AfD I have recently posted just three peer reviewed articles in art history which I hope you will examine:

* Summary of the The Times Literary Supplement review so much in question.

* The Absolute Leonardo - Journal of Art Historiography - Review by Professor Claire Farago (University of Colorado)

* Coagula Art Journal #113, May 2016

If you cannot find this information in the various threads please let me know. Thanks again for your contribution to the discussion. --Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: For what it's worth, I'm opposed to the redirect that some have suggested; if the subject is determined to not be notable, let us just delete the article. Redirecting to a different biography is somewhat misleading; Dr Friedman has some level of notability beyond producing these books, even if producing the books might be one of the key claims of notability. (And in reply to freshacconci above; as I said, the comments for which you warned Wwwwhatupprrr may well have been uncivil, but they did not contain a personal attack. The warning you gave was for personal attacks. In addition, it's somewhat selective to remove that comment as the problematic one; there's been incivility from a number of people involved in this wider discussion, and I am not convinced that Wwwwhatupprrr's comments were even the most egregious example. I stand by my claim that your warning was inappropriate.) Josh Milburn (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the section mentioned above. While I'd prefer a plot twist wherein Wasted Words and Dust Bunnies is independently notable and serves as a suitable redirect, this isn't the case. The Observer and TLS reviews (I can access beyond the paywall, if you want) are substantial, but the New Criterion and Book Forum reviews are not, so the book is best covered in the aforementioned section. (With the Las Vegas Weekly and KNPR Hickey interviews, just one more major review should make the books sufficiently notable for their own article, if the redirect is that big a concern. Java mag appears to be a blog, or at least has no hallmarks of editorial reliability.) Friedman is responsible for one of the books so the section is a suitable redirect, even if it doesn't represent the breadth of her work. As for the article creator, all it takes is a few edited volumes with reviews to make a person notable, so it's likely that she'll have an article in the future. If/when that is the case, we can restore your work—so it's not in vain. As mentioned above, the language is a bit obsequious and would need cleanup. If the historian's notability apart from the books has not been sufficiently addressed, I don't see what sources we would be using to support her notability apart from her editorship. If her work as a historian as become noted in her field, sources will say so. Invited lectures are not the same as secondary sources asserting a topic's importance. czar 22:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the generous comments User talk:Czar. So, knowing full well you put some good-faith effort above, I just did a quick search just now and found two more reviews for you. Perhaps they will meet your standards as you mentioned that you just needed a few more reviews to post a KEEP (after all, I didn't want to turn the wiki article into a CV since that is against wiki policy):

* The Absolute Leonardo - Journal of Art Historiography - Review by Professor Claire Farago (University of Colorado): "Book review: Claire Farago on The Lives of Leonardo, ed. Thomas Frangenberg and Rodney Palmer, Warburg Institute Colloquia", 2 February 2015. May I just post one comment by the reviewer for what its worth in this discussion:

"Friedman’s analysis is an exemplary study of ‘intertextual’ relationships among these particular authors that deserves to be expanded to include their active appropriation of the Vasari Life of Leonardo and whatever other sources they used." Website | Website Page | Full Review Contents (PDF)

* Coagula Art Journal #113, May 2016: The 113th issue of ‘’Coagula Art Journal’’, May 2016, is the largest ever printed in the magazine’s 24 year history at 88 pages. This issue highlights Eric Minh Swenson's documentary photographs of Art Stars – 160 women artists, dealers, and writers in the art scene from New York to California – with an introduction by Mat Gleason. Cecily Brown, Catherine Opie, Alexis Smith (artist), Casey Jane Ellison, Edythe Broad, Hunter Drohojowska-Philip, Julia Friedman, Helen Molesworth, Michele Maccarone, and other notable "art stars" are featured. Art Stars is also an art exhibition that is currently on view at The Museum of Art and History (MOAH), Lancaster, CA, which runs until July 24. [6] A video of the exhibition can be found here. However, pay careful attention to page 18 wherein ‘’Coagula Art Journal’’, Art critic, writer, and veteran Huffington Post blogger Mat Gleason wrote the following about Dr. Friedman:

“It was an academic who made Dave Hickey relevant again. Julia Friedman saw that the old codger’s fitful Facebook encounters were more interesting than anything he’d written in two decades and, with the Sith Lord’s blessing, published his online rantings, putting him back in that limelight he craves, and clearing a path for herself as one of art’s top thinkers as well.”

As I understand it that makes: The Journal of Art Historiography + Professor Claire Farago + ‘’Coagula Art Journal’’ (a notable wiki agent) + Mat Gleason + Eric Minh Swenson (another notable wiki agent) = more than 2 more qualifiers in my recent quick search. Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The noteworthiness of a statement is baked into its pedigree. For example, if Mat Gleason were to be important, he would have his own article. He doesn't just write for Coagula—he's its main writer and the journal's WP article cites several sources referring to it as a tabloid (not quite reliable for statements of fact). The journal itself is a blog and doesn't come from a history of production quality. I'd like to take a look anyway. Isn't it supposed to be a free PDF download? Where did you find the article in question? czar 13:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Canvassing. There has been WP:Canvassing [7] by the article's creator. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Comment If you check the times and dates you will find I was already at said article and editing it before that editor ever left a note on my talk page. In fact I found the article was at AFD when I looked at the visual arts article alert page found here: [8] The alert page is where I heard of the article. I decided to edit the article before I commented on the AFD. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 04:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment New page creator makes another mistake > now old news. Here was my humble apology a couple of days ago. I will be happy to extend it (belatedly) to you Xxanthippe. --Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 05:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• Summary of the The Times Literary Supplement review so much in question. Since so many of you were interested in this TLS document, but don't have access to the "The leading international weekly for literary culture" I thought it was a shame. So I thought I would post a review summary for you -- or a review of a review if you will. --Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 06:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• [These new books] are best understood as reflections on Marshall McLuhan’s famous epigram, “the medium is the message”. The medium in question here is the internet, specifically Facebook, and the messages are those of postmodernism: the triumph of image over identity, the dominance of representation over reality, and the demise of rational judgement in the evaluation of art.
• Wasted Words presents us with Hickey’s daily threads…a vintage that’s gone sour…which are allowed to meander through their courses and reprinted in their entirety…A “companion volume”, Dust Bunnies, consists of Hickey’s most memorable epigrams [edited] from their context [by Julia Friedman]…Both books modernize the aphoristic tradition in the manner of Nietzsche and Adorno: pithy observations of quotidian minutiae replace totalizing claims to absolute truth.
• It might seem that [these] texts vindicate the idealistic view of social media as a newly democratic mode of discourse, in which neither reputational nor institutional authority can wield their traditional heft. Technology may appear to have swept away the intellectual elitism that distorted the twentieth-century art world, leaving us free to enjoy what Julia Friedman, the editor of Wasted Words, calls “the transition from a critical to a post-critical society”.
• [What these books] actually reveal…is…very far from their appearance…“Did any of you whiz-kids out there see this trainwreck coming? Of course none of [the] interlocutors did see it coming and, more to the point, neither did Hickey. We might profitably ask, why not?
• In the twenty-first century…media of representation have achieved practical power over the reality they once claimed to represent.
• [To Julia Friedman’s full credit, these books call into question] why should such a committed advocate of performativity [Hickey] lament the current state of the art world, or decry the postmodern condition in general? And, these books suggest that Hickey now regards the victory [i.e. a totally commercialized art world] as pyrrhic. Wasted Words confronts the consequences of that position.
• The conclusion to which these [ Julia Friedman ] books point is that, in the “post-critical age”, logos is no longer the enemy. Indeed, logos has been overthrown by eidola. The manipulation of persona, brands, multiple identities and images that the internet simultaneously reflects and facilitates does not have a liberating but an oppressive effect. Wasn’t that supposed to be a good thing?

Seem to be a few passing mentions of subject. Notability requires multiple in-depth treatments. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Reply to Xxanthippe. The above "summary" is just a thumbnail summary -- that's all -- from the review in the prestigious publication. It is NOT the entire document. Publishing the entire review would be against international copyright law. In fact, the article is over 2,800 words and 37 paragraphs long. Additionally, I dare say I do believe any "content producer" publishing in the world today would give an index finger for a single mention in The Times Literary Supplement -- but Josh Milburn in the UK would have a better idea of that. --Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Plainly notable, indisputably passes WP:GNG. This is a classic case of newbie-biting (and bizarrely determined newbie-biting, too), and it seems like Wikipedia might have lost a new editor for it. This is the sort of thing editors should be able to be sanctioned for. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. per Drover's Wife. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:1
• Keep, as it has enough good sources for notability. I think the main problem with the article is its nauseating promotional tone. This is an academic in her 40s, but it sounds like an article for Nobel pize winner. There's a lot of puffery going on. The long list of universities she has taught at in the lede is normal for pretty much all academics-- most of those gigs were probably just early career jobs-- take what you can get gigs for a few courses paid at $7000 a piece. In any case, keep and rewrite.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you HappyValleyEditor and I, of course, agree: esp concerning "the long list of universities" and "take what you can get"! Therefore, if nobody else makes said changes shortly after this AfD, with your permission (since it is your idea), I certainly will make those changes. --Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wwwwhatupprrr, but you do not need anyone's permission to make changes. Nobody owns any articles or ideas here. Now back to the AfD discussion.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - This is an example of why various Wikiprojects on women are necessary. In contrast, a new two-sentence stub about some remote and unheard of dry riverbed probably wouldn't even be challenged. This article gets all the basics correct and has provided sources, and credible external links. She's obviously received a decent amount of media exposure in her career. And, yet, a couple above have the audacity to suggest deleting the article and redirecting it to a subsection of an article about a male art critic? Oh, give me a break! Women have come so far, and some days it's like women haven't advanced at all. — Maile (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your point of view. I have made the suggestion elsewhere that there is a need for a policy debate about whether notability standards for female BLPs should be set lower than those for male ones. If that were to become formal policy, then this BLP would be likely to be kept easily and there would be no need for the destructive AfD debates that have taken place around this issue recently, as with the BLPs created at the unfortunate University of Regina edit-a-thon.[9] Comments from feminist editors on this matter would be particularly welcome. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Re: Maile's last two claims, she literally edited a book about him. Let's not use the lack of non-promotional, in-depth, reliable coverage on Friedman as a measure of the march of history. czar 13:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Discovered December 2012 JAVA extended article about Friedman: Dear Editors, have discovered another -- more in-depth and precise -- full-length article, entitled Julia Friedman's Artistic Vision, also by Jenna Duncan, about Julia Friedman in JAVA magazine from December 2012. I would like to share it with you. I discovered the lengthy article here...on this webpage. It has alot of interesting material which I hope many editors can enjoy. More information about this article can be found in the article's TALK page. --Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is just promotional PR: not independent. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• (Ping Xxanthippe, Czar). Java Magazine as a source appears to be sufficiently independent and reliable (though WP:PRIMARY for the two articles). Editor is Robert Sentinery, xref this and this from Phoenix New Times. PDF shows multiple editors. This suggests an independent interviewer is chosen. Magazine is a monthly and has published since 1994. Primary market is Phoenix, but that's a major city/metropolitan area. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Java is a local paper covering local art events, so I wouldn't use its article on a visiting professor towards the prof's notability. (If the WP page already existed, Java is a better source than her personal page, but not much better.) czar 13:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: For those voting keep on WP:GNG grounds, is there a specific criterion listed at any specific notability guideline — including but not limited to WP:NACADEMIC (with significant curatorship counting for ACADEMIC#1), WP:CREATIVE, or WP:ANYBIO — or is it instead (for example) a broad WP:NPOINTS keep? (The reliable secondary evidence appears to be the TLS, the Farago paras on her chapter in Leonardo, and probably her photo-appearance in Art Stars/Coagula with blurb, with other evidence including the Observer and Java mostly primary). Thanks, ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I confess that I don't fully understand your question, but you've got a pretty weird definition of "primary". Citing a discussion of her books/research along with a brief interview of her published on the website of a reputable newspaper (and written, as far as I can tell, by a reputable journalist) is hardly the same as citing her CV or personal webpage. I'm honestly baffled by all the delete votes here; there is article after article about her work in mainstream newspapers and specialist magazines. What more do people want? Josh Milburn (talk) 13:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LG_Williams_(3rd_nomination), [10], [11]. May be coincidental, but I'm out. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 14:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are more than enough sources to show notability and passing GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is an undisclosed conflict of interest editing going on here. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Wwwwhatupprrr --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:Too soon. After reviewing the evidence presented for notability, I find it to be inadequate by Wikipedia's standards. For really notable art critics, take a look at Ernst Gombrich, Kenneth Clark, Erwin Panofsky. All male, you say. Take then a look at Joan Evans (art historian). All these have far greater achievements than the subject does at present. Of course that may change with time but WP:Not a crystal ball. There also appears to be doubt about the integrity of several of the keep edits, which makes me think that it will be best to delete the BLP and recreate it if circumstances become more propitious. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • No on is suggesting (and no one has to suggest) that the article's subject is the most notable art critic in the world. The question is whether she is sufficiently notable, which, based on third party coverage of her work, she does seem to be. And whose "keep edits" do you doubt the "integrity" of, please? Josh Milburn (talk) 08:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at user:Lemongirl1942's comments. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Doublespeak. If you are making an accusation, make it. If you are musing idly, go and bother some blogger. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please be WP:Civil to editors who are doing their best to apply Wikipedia's standards of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Please don't make spurious accusations in an attempt to avoid answering straightforward questions. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly have difficulty understanding when you are being uncivil, Josh Milburn. Stating that Xxanthippe is engaged in doublespeak and suggesting s/he "go and bother some blogger" i.e. get lost is pretty clearly uncivil. Likewise, suggesting that Xxanthippe is making "spurious accusations" to avoid answering a question is also uncivil. The guidelines clearly state to comment on the article not the editor. Of course, those "spurious" allegations in fact are pointing to well-argued cases of COI and sockpuppetry, and Wwwwhatupprrr is now blocked indefinitely. This article is clearly written as a promotional vehicle and/or conceptual art project by Julia Friedman and LG Williams. freshacconci talk to me 18:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly have difficulty in understanding when you are being patronising. And, a word of advice, if you're going to be patronising, it's in your best interest to be right. The spurious accusation was that I was being uncivil, nothing about anyone else. The doublespeak is obvious to anyone who cares to look. Calling a spade a spade is not incivility. If you think differently, then good for you. I don't really care. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I was already more or less in agreement with Xxanthippe's comments above. Then I looked up the thread Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Wwwwhatupprrr and have read it carefully. I find the evidence presented by Lemongirl942 there persuasive that we are likely dealing with a carefully planned external COI/PROMO effort here. We should not reward such behavior. In cases where notability appears to be borderline/doubtful, that certainly means that we have to go with the "delete" option. Nsk92 (talk) 02:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - I can see here being notable at some point, but I don't think the references indicate it at the moment. Redirect to Dave_Hickey#Wasted_Words:_The_Essential_Dave_Hickey_Online_Compilation. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a search reveals hardly any sources beyond social media. The TLS article mentions her but is not enough to establish notability. I'd say this was WP:TOOSOON. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also endorse the comments about sockpuppetry by Rebb below. This is unfortunately also a Speedy Deletion G5 candidate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note In addition to the COI case against Wwwwhatupprrr, it should be pointed out that this article's creator, Wwwwhatupprrr, has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet, part of an ongoing promotional campaign/art project involving Julia Friedman and artist LG Williams (Friedman's apparent real life partner). I won't strike Wwwwhatupprrr's comments as is customary with sock accounts in AfGs, as I believe this is an unusual circumstance. Others may disagree. freshacconci talk to me 18:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I am on the fence about notability, and, were notability the only issue here, I would likely vote for retention, but discouraging sockpuppetry and manipulation—especially when a financial motive is in play—is a worthwhile endeavor. Wwwwhatupprrr's behavior is beyond the pale, especially his deliberate, sophisticated exploitation of the community's sensitivities about gender. As a woman who cares very much about women's representation on Wikipedia, I cannot begin to tell you how angry this makes me.

  My position is solidly grounded in policy: per CSD criterion G5, an article with only one significant author may be deleted, regardless of merit, simply because that author was a sockpuppet; this article is questionably notable, has had few substantive edits by others, and was created by someone whose misbehavior went far beyond sockpuppetry and undisclosed paid editing. Rebbing 19:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - In view of the above sock information, I've stricken my comments above, as well as stricken the "support". I now believe the article should be deleted. — Maile (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Marginal, at best, notability combined with COI socking for financial gain. Jbh^Talk 23:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse CSD G5 Jbh^Talk 12:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The attempt to get different standards for deletion for articles on males and females is just a horrible idea. We need indepdent sources, and I am not convinced we have enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am echoing the preceding observations. The socking is especially troublesome. And Adoil Descended (talk) 02:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete My thought are similar to what Rebbing articulated above. Overall, this is a borderline case and (in ordinary circumstances), I would have probably recommended a redirect as there are not enough independent secondary sources to establish notability. However, the socking and the unwillingness to disclose the COI is extremely troublesome, not to mention the personal attacks. The history of sockpuppetry indicates that we are dealing with a long time POV pushing editor who is clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopaedia, but rather to promote themselves. This kind of behaviour should not be encouraged. What particularly ticked me off was playing on the sensitivities of the community about gender and using it for promoting their own interests. It wasted a whole lot of time and created bad blood among longtime members of the community. Let's stop this right now. I recommend a delete under CSD G5 - article created by a blocked user in violation of a block. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• For future reference: Link to COI case and Sockpuppet investigation page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:14, 11 June 2016 (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.