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 kept — Werdna • talk 02:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Osnat Tzadok[edit]

Non-notable artist who flogs her work on eBay; that being said, only 131 G-hits [1], which turn up zero on reliable sources. Meets no element for creative professionals under WP:BIO. RGTraynor 07:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Weak keep. While this video clip is apparently hosted by the artist on YouTube, it appears to be an intact copy of a CBC news broadcast. Havard Gould, the correspondent, is a reporter at the national level with CBC, based on the Google research I did. I'm going to say that interview/news story is "published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject"—which fulfills the basic criteria of WP:BIO. At this point, the article needs improvement, not scrapping. —C.Fred (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC) recommendation amended 13:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am new to Wikipedia and I believe that it is obvious that this artist is noteworthy. I understand that some folks in the art world do not have an objective opinion about artists who are successful representing themselves on eBay. This is a notable artist. CBS notes this artist. Jerusalem Post notes this artist. eBay notes this artist. Canada Newswire notes this artist. The fact that the artists sells over $30,000 a month on eBay is notable in itself. This artist won the 2007 eBay Canadian Entrepreneur of the year award in 2007. Is this not a noteworthy artist? Perhaps newly noteworthy however I do not think it can be denied. -- I live on Planet Art (talk 13:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Note that I live on Planet Art (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the original editor of the article, and most/all of this user's edits to date have focused on the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But how much of that is verifiable? So far, all I can verify is that she won third place in the 2007 eBay Canadian Entrepreneur of the Year Awards. A Google search found nothing from CBS, Jerusalem Post, or Canada Newswire; it also found nothing directly from CBC, though it did turn a clip via YouTube. —C.Fred (talk) 13:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Fred, I want to focus on this very first article before I create my next article as I am still learning. You can verify these sources in the inline links and also the reference links. I live on Planet Art (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fail WP:BIO. Yes, she's a working artist, but she's not notable for an encyclopedia. The sources that are provided are not really about her as an artist per se, but more about her selling through ebay. The Jerusalem Post article is about wine and mentions her as an illustrator. For Wikipedia, we require mainly academic sources and popular press sources that are beyond the trivial. This has not been demonstrated. freshacconcispeaktome 14:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconcispeaktome 14:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the artist sells so much artwork on eBay is in of itself worthy of being in an encyclopedia. The noted CBS interview, the paintings on wine labels, the Fox TV show hanging the work add more notability. In doing more research I just discovered the artist's work is on an educational book published by Thomson-Nelson. Thank you for posting this discussion on Visual Artists, Freshacconci, I need help here. I agree with —C.Fred that this article should be improved. I do wonder though how much time I have to improve it?--- I live on Planet Art (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussions usually last 5 days. An administrator then decides to keep, delete or no consensus (which defaults as keep). freshacconcispeaktome 16:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that info, Freshacconci. I live on Planet Art (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only hope of notability is as an e-bay phenomenon, but she doesn't make it imho. Johnbod (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Modernist (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Article revisions. I have done a complete rewrite of the article. I do agree that her chief claim to notability are her eBay sales and award, however. —C.Fred (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred I think that's a wonderful rewrite. I need to learn how to make those "marks" in the reference areas. I will maintain my standing on this issue and await more input from others. I appreciate everyone (for or against deletion) for adding to this discussion. I live on Planet Art (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article revisions. I added on minor addition - a reference to the Thomas Nelson Publication book that uses this artist's work on their cover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I live on Planet Art (talk • contribs) 14:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per C. Fred there looks to be ample sources in line with WP:BIO criteria. JBsupreme (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unfortunately, upon actually reading those sources, they don't comply. WP:BIO holds "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." It specifically enjoins against "trivial" mentions, and the only one of those sources which more than mentions her name ("Tzadok was the third place winner") is a couple paragraphs in the Toronto Star piece. Those paragraphs, in fact, quote her about her husband. RGTraynor 16:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sources still remain. Please refer to all of the sources.I live on Planet Art (talk) 00:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, if the sources are trivial, they do not count toward the "significant coverage" hurdle. In that respect, more sources are needed. —C.Fred (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. While the pile-on of trivial sources strike me as little more than "OMG, we need to find anything on the Web that has her name on it!" and add nothing to the article, I can't see a point in removing them. Either other, reliable sources will be found in time to save the article, or it'll be a moot point. RGTraynor 08:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RG your information regarding Google is not correct. The results produce 2110 references, not 131 as you stated above.[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by I live on Planet Art (talk • contribs) 11:57, 28 June 2008 (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.