| Revision as of 21:48, 24 April 2007 editPelleSmith (talk | contribs)7,078 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:18, 25 April 2007 edit undoProabivouac (talk | contribs)10,467 edits →[]Next edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| *'''Delete''' not very notable. Not many sources are mentioned.--] 20:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' not very notable. Not many sources are mentioned.--] 20:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Comment''': This is whole proceeding is a sham. For all intents and purposes this individual seems at least moderately accomplished as an artist. However, to claim that her artistic merits brought this entry into existence would be ridiculous. The entry was clearly created because she fits the category "converts to Islam". Likewise it was clearly nominated for deletion for the self same reason. How many of the editors who have commented so far have any history of editing art related entries to speak of? How many people here are qualified to comment on ''her notability as an artist'' ... which is clearly what is called for? Pardon me for commenting on the editors but this whole scene pretty much goes against everything an encyclopedia stands for. The POV war going on here is clearly reaching ludicrous proportions.] 21:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | *'''Comment''': This is whole proceeding is a sham. For all intents and purposes this individual seems at least moderately accomplished as an artist. However, to claim that her artistic merits brought this entry into existence would be ridiculous. The entry was clearly created because she fits the category "converts to Islam". Likewise it was clearly nominated for deletion for the self same reason. How many of the editors who have commented so far have any history of editing art related entries to speak of? How many people here are qualified to comment on ''her notability as an artist'' ... which is clearly what is called for? Pardon me for commenting on the editors but this whole scene pretty much goes against everything an encyclopedia stands for. The POV war going on here is clearly reaching ludicrous proportions.] 21:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' Re PelleSmith 2's comments above, this article is a side effect of the depictions of Muhammad discussion, wherein it was (falsely, though probably in good faith) argued that the most common method of "depicting" Muhammad in Islamic tradition was to write his name as a sort of logo. The search for images of this nature turned up almost very few examples (in fact, two) notable examples. ], created by Salma Arastu (who also makes greeting cards), was one that didn't quite merit inclusion (although for whatever reason it's since been placed rather ridiculously on ].) After the image was found, ALM scientist e-mailed Ms. Arastu and asked for the rights to use the image, which, according to ALM, she granted. Then, this article was created: it exists only to support the use of the image, which itself was uploaded only to displace actual depictions of Muhammad.] 04:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:18, 25 April 2007
Salma Arastu
Subject is not notable. Arrow740 16:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The article does not establish the notability of the subject. Beit Or 17:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: Doesnt look notable. There are so many artists, but they're not all notable. --Matt57 19:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: Multiple Newspaper references, 30+ solo exhibitions in many different countries, around 70 total exhibitions. Work displayed in many Museums, art galleries, universities. The article is created yesterday and still under writing. What it has even right now is enough to keep the article. --- ALM 11:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Matt57 and Beit Or. -- Karl Meier 14:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per ALM. IP198 14:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 20:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete not very notable. Not many sources are mentioned.--Sefringle 20:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: This is whole proceeding is a sham. For all intents and purposes this individual seems at least moderately accomplished as an artist. However, to claim that her artistic merits brought this entry into existence would be ridiculous. The entry was clearly created because she fits the category "converts to Islam". Likewise it was clearly nominated for deletion for the self same reason. How many of the editors who have commented so far have any history of editing art related entries to speak of? How many people here are qualified to comment on her notability as an artist ... which is clearly what is called for? Pardon me for commenting on the editors but this whole scene pretty much goes against everything an encyclopedia stands for. The POV war going on here is clearly reaching ludicrous proportions.PelleSmith 21:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Re PelleSmith 2's comments above, this article is a side effect of the depictions of Muhammad discussion, wherein it was (falsely, though probably in good faith) argued that the most common method of "depicting" Muhammad in Islamic tradition was to write his name as a sort of logo. The search for images of this nature turned up almost very few examples (in fact, two) notable examples. This image, created by Salma Arastu (who also makes greeting cards), was one that didn't quite merit inclusion (although for whatever reason it's since been placed rather ridiculously on Islam.) After the image was found, ALM scientist e-mailed Ms. Arastu and asked for the rights to use the image, which, according to ALM, she granted. Then, this article was created: it exists only to support the use of the image, which itself was uploaded only to displace actual depictions of Muhammad.Proabivouac 04:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
