Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Proabivouac (talk | contribs) at 10:04, 25 April 2007 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Salma Arastu

Salma Arastu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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)

  BAD FAITH Assumptions: The image is in Islam article since couple of months. I created article couple of days ago. If the article is deleted even then the image will remain there. This assumption that I have created it because she a Muslim convert is also wrong. I am going to take it out from the article right now. If that helps?? Please continue having bad faith assumption.She is my mother. What about that ? --- ALM 09:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  This is so bad that this article is made Islam, anti-Islam thing. It was just a simple contribution. It is shame how badly wikipedia works these days. I have removed her convertion to Islam thing. I will not add it again too. --- ALM 09:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

She is your mother?

Like I said, ALM, you first found and uploaded the image in order to displace depictions of Muhammad, then placed it in on Islam for whatever reason (perhaps so it wouldn't be orphaned?) then created the article to make it seem notable. It's supposed to work the other way around, on all counts.Proabivouac 09:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you see inside my mind? It is such a wrong assumption. --- ALM 09:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note for closing Admin: Points so far for deletion are following

  1) Not notable: Material is written about her NY Times, The Times of India, San Jose Mercury News, Philadelphia Inquirer, by MIT Press, by Stanford University, Oxford University Press. If she is still NOT notable then tell me what is called notable? Delete half of existing wikipedia too because they are also not notable then.

  2) I created article becasue she is a Muslim convert: That has been removed from the article and I will not add it again. Even though it was a bad faith assumption.

  3) Created article becasue of a picture: That picture is in Islam article since more than a month where article is create 2 days ago. Finding link between picture and article is another bad faith assumption. Even the article is deleted the picture will remain in Islam article. --- ALM 09:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"Finding link between picture and article is another bad faith assumption."

Really? The beginnings of this discussion are accessible to all in this thread and those it followed, at a time when you didn't even know how to spell her name.Proabivouac 10:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Media and music)
• AfD debates