Deletion of Julia Friedman

Comment: The subject appears notable; her recent compilations on Dave Hickey, in particular, have attracted some very significant press attention. I've had a play with the article; it's not perfect, but I'm really not seeing a justification for all the shade being thrown at it. I can understand why Wwwwhatupprrr is frustrated, here. Whatever happened to |not biting the newbies
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers (WP:BITE)

Comment: Plainly notable, indisputably passes . This is a classic case of newbie-biting (and bizarrely determined newbie-biting, too), and it seems like Wikipedia might have lost a new editor for it. This is the sort of thing editors should be able to be sanctioned for
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I agree with Josh Milburn above. The article subject is notable. Her work regarding Dave Hickey, in and of itself has received significant coverage from independent reliable resources. The sources regarding the Dave Hickey works are listed here: http://lasvegasweekly.com/ae/fine-art/2016/feb/10/art-critic-dave-hickey-facebook-women-artists, http://javamagaz.com/?p=1708, http://pcppress.com/email/wasted_words/wasted_words.html, http://www.newcriterion.com/posts.cfm/The-Critic-s-Notebook-for-January-25--2016-7983, and http://www.the-tls.co.uk/editions/may-27-2016  are more than enough to show Freidman's notability. She of course passes , Plus there are even more sources within the article that also significantly cover the article subject as well
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: For those voting keep on  grounds, is there a specific criterion listed at any specific notability guideline — including but not limited to  (with significant curatorship counting for ACADEMIC#1), , or  — or is it instead (for example) a broad  keep? (The reliable secondary evidence appears to be the TLS, the https://arthistoriography.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/farago-review.pdf Farago paras on her chapter in ''Leonardo'', and probably her http://juliafriedman.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Julia-Friedman-Coagula-130-Issue_400px.png photo-appearance in ''Art Stars''/''Coagula'' with http://juliafriedman.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Star-Wars_detail-01-400x174.jpg blurb, with other evidence including the Observer and Java mostly primary). Thanks
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NACADEMIC||WP:CREATIVE||WP:ANYBIO||WP:NPOINTS)

Comment: My thought are similar to what Rebbing articulated above. Overall, this is a borderline case and (in ordinary circumstances), I would have probably recommended a redirect as there are not enough independent secondary sources to establish notability. However, the socking and the unwillingness to disclose the COI is extremely troublesome, not to mention the personal attacks. The history of sockpuppetry indicates that we are dealing with a long time POV pushing editor who is clearly Wikipedia:NOTHERE|not here to contribute to the encyclopaedia, but rather to Wikipedia:PROMOTION|promote themselves. This kind of behaviour should not be encouraged. What particularly ticked me off was playing on the sensitivities of the community about gender and using it for promoting their own interests. It wasted a whole lot of time and created bad blood among longtime members of the community. Let's stop this right now. I recommend a delete under |CSD G5 - article created by a blocked user in violation of a block
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:G5)

Comment: I am on the fence about notability, and, were notability the only issue here, I would likely vote for retention, but discouraging sockpuppetry and manipulation—especially when a financial motive is in play—is a worthwhile endeavor.  Wwwwhatupprrr's behavior is beyond the pale, especially his deliberate, sophisticated exploitation of the community's sensitivities about gender. As a woman who cares very much about women's representation on Wikipedia, I cannot begin to tell you how angry this makes me.My position is solidly grounded in policy: per |CSD criterion G5, an article with only one significant author may be deleted, regardless of merit, simply because that author was a sockpuppet; this article is questionably notable, has had few substantive edits by others, and was created by someone whose misbehavior went far beyond sockpuppetry and undisclosed paid editing
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (:WP:G5)