Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tzaims Luksus

:{{la|Tzaims Luksus}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tzaims_Luksus Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Tzaims Luksus}})

I feel that the subject might be relevant for Wikipedia, as it seems like the subject has done some relevant work, but it seems like the article might be written by somebody very close to the subject or by the subject itself. Would like to have a debate about keeping the article or completely rewriting the article as it seems to contain puffery and limited objective sources. Sheroddy (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - Has won at least two significant historic fashion awards - the Winnie and the Coty. Winners of these awards are always notable. I see no evidence that you made any effort to search for alternative, better quality sources before nominating for deletion - you would have found many sources in Google Books in which Luksus is discussed at length. Bringing to AFD should NEVER be used as a substitute for article improvement, especially as you clearly think the subject is probably "relevant" enough to have an article. This is NOT how AFD is supposed to work. Mabalu (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
• Keep definitely notable, for example here's a large entry on the Cooper Hewitt (AKA Smithsonian) [https://collection.cooperhewitt.org/people/18046005/ Design museum website], and he is also [http://www.metmuseum.org/collection/the-collection-online/search/159567 in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum] of Art in NY. Also, here's a [https://books.google.ca/books?id=DEwEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA55&dq=Tzaims+Luksus&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Tzaims%20Luksus&f=false 3/4 page article on the subject in a 1968 issue of Life magazine.] Notability is crystal-clear. Per comments above, it's clear that Sheroddy did not do WP:BEFORE and thus made a mistake in nominating this artist. The artist being in two collections at very reputable major museums means he meets WP:ARTIST. Sheroddy, I would suggest withdrawing the nomination as described at WP:WDAFD, what do you say? New Media Theorist (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment just a note that Sheroddy's stats for AfD are [http://tools.wmflabs.org/afdstats/afdstats.py?name=Sheroddy&max=&startdate=&altname= 60% successful according to his vote, which is delete 100% of the time.] This perhaps suggests a problem.New Media Theorist (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.