Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tabish Khan (art critic)

Tabish Khan (art critic)

[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)

Biography of an art critic that fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. Sources in article are limited to WP:PRIMARYSOURCE WP:INTERVIEWS, WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in media coverage of other topics, primary source bios and other non-independent sources. WP:BEFORE search turns up lots of his own writing but no independent WP:SIGCOV to establish notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Visual arts, and England. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the writer is known within the contemporary art scene in the UK and is currently active suggesting there may be more additions to the page in future. While I agree that searching for the author turns up lots of his own writing, a look at other art critics, writers and journalists with Wikipedia entries returns similar results. In terms of independent coverage, this article does include links to notable outlets that have sought his views on art stories and artworks. Suggestions for improvement rather than deletion may be a better course of action. Londoneditor284 (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC) — Londoneditor284 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep these are good points. It would be a diservice to Wikipedia if well-known critics were expunged Likeabutterfly (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although this person is mostly only known within the contemporary British art scene, they have contributed numerous articles, interviews, and features in multiple outlets and have been quoted in many sources (as can be seen from the citations). They are clearly significant enough within their own field to warrant keeping this article. Any suggestions to improve the article would be welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.45.218.212 (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC) — 80.45.218.212 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Izno (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quotations in sources are not enough to demonstrate notability (except in a limited case for certain academics), and authoring articles isn't either. What SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources can you offer? Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me do some digging and get back to you. The nature of the subject (someone who writes about other people's artwork for a living) makes it difficult by definition to have many SIGCOV sources. I feel this should be taken into account? 80.45.218.212 (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel this way, that's a great discussion topic for WP:VILLAGEPUMP, not for a discussion where we can't change policy. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could Dclemens1971 help in finding any better sources for this person/article? I've looked at pages for other critics too but can't seem to see how they fit the criteria if we are super-strict with SIGCOV Likeabutterfly (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please strike your second !vote; editors are only allowed one !vote in an AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the entire point of the WP:BEFORE search (which I did) was to find qualifying sources, and I didn't find them. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"[A] search turns up lots of his own writing but no independent [sources]" - isn't this exactly what we should expect though? Likeabutterfly (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's what we should expect from a person who's not notable, I suppose. And as already mentioned, please strike through your duplicative !vote. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per the nomination. Taabii (talk) 10:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]