Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magdalena Trzebiatowska - Wikipedia
- 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 Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-19 12:31Z
- Magdalena Trzebiatowska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts Tyrenius 01:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Having one's works displayed in several local exhibitions and websites does not make one notable. The references are: a homepage, university general homepage (no mention of the subject) and a confusing German website which looks like some contest/exhibition photo gallery ([1]). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 02:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete best claims of notability are exhibitions, but not one of the venues has its own article. Feeeshboy 07:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep, if Wikipedia does not have a article on the Seetal competition than shame on us, it is one of Switzerland's leading art prizes. Besides she was in the Master and pupil in Warsaw an invitational that, at least in Europe, was widely covered. There are also multiple mentions about her individual exposition in Athens. Alf photoman 15:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article fails WP:BIO and does not meet WP:MOS very much.TellyaddictEditor review! 16:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep provisionally per Alf photoman and list of exhibitions. Willing to reconsider if knowledgeable arguments are presented. WP:MOS is not a deletion criterion: I've cleaned up the article a bit. Tyrenius 23:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article meets WP:BIO due to exhibitions. John Vandenberg 01:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Not so sure about notability, but I will defer to others as to the significance of the exhibitions listed. My concern is about references and WP:V. From what I can tell, the exhibitions list is taken from the artist's website. Citations would be helpful, but, at present, I'm not seeing other reliable sources. Of course, my Polish leaves something to be desired. Planetneutral 02:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete Personally, I don't see the evidence to back Alf photoman's (persuasive) points. If those points are verifiable, I could change my mind and overlook the absence of other in-depth published sources in English. Mereda 12:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Tyrenius, on exhibitions, which are far from "local" as nom asserts. Johnbod 15:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep as i accept the judgment of those who know about what exhibitions are notable. Art-related deletions appear frequently enough that it would help the rest of us to insert articles about the ones that are considered major. DGG 00:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is Category:Art exhibitions which seems a rather mixed bag. It might be useful to have a "List of major art exhibitions" but it would need constant defence against the, well, minor ones. I think a regular exhibition can certainly be notable without implying that every artist who has been shown in it is - the Royal Academy summer exhibition for example shows about 500 living artists every year. I would not take the fact that an artist has exhibited there as in itself evidence of notability, although if they have exhibited every year for ten years, that is rather different. A link to an reputable external list on the visual arts project page or at Art exhibitionwould be handy. All that goes in spades for galleries! Johnbod 01:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think something very useful that is emerging from these art AfDs is the type of specific criteria that apply. Guidelines should follow practice and not seek to impose on it. Exhibitions, for example, are peculiar to artists and one of the main means by which artists demonstrate their standing. Provided that the exhibitions can be verified, then they may form an important part of notability. Most artists do not often tend, for example, to be featured in newspapers, and many art magazines do not offer all their content on line. These ideas need working through and I think the best way is out here in the front line for now. Tyrenius 05:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I tend to agree totally, but it is a complicated subject. Not every gallery has only notable expositions nor does every non-notable gallery have only unimportant artists. I could cite two examples right away: Before John Lennon's drawings went on world tour in the 1990 they were shown at a fairly small gallery in Darmstadt-Eberstadt/Germany located in the cellar of a bookstore. As far as I know that was the last notable artist to have a exposition there. On the other hand there is a gallery in La Coruña/Spain that has had expositions with paintings from Picasso, Miró and Dalí, yet most of their business is done with relatively unknown local artists. What we surely need to have is references to the likes of the Documenta, the Venice Biennale or the Prince of Asturias Awards#Arts. Alf photoman 13:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC) (wikilinks added by John Vandenberg 14:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Alf, I think this is what Johnbod was getting at above. If we can create a list of the top exhibitions, with articles that have citations galore to prove it, it becomes easier to judge notability for the cases that probably should be "keep"s. The list doesnt need to be extensive either, nor would it need to be encycopedic. i.e. it could be out of the main name space (like Wikipedia:List of notable art exhibitions) and only used for the purposes of Afds. John Vandenberg 14:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I tend to agree totally, but it is a complicated subject. Not every gallery has only notable expositions nor does every non-notable gallery have only unimportant artists. I could cite two examples right away: Before John Lennon's drawings went on world tour in the 1990 they were shown at a fairly small gallery in Darmstadt-Eberstadt/Germany located in the cellar of a bookstore. As far as I know that was the last notable artist to have a exposition there. On the other hand there is a gallery in La Coruña/Spain that has had expositions with paintings from Picasso, Miró and Dalí, yet most of their business is done with relatively unknown local artists. What we surely need to have is references to the likes of the Documenta, the Venice Biennale or the Prince of Asturias Awards#Arts. Alf photoman 13:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC) (wikilinks added by John Vandenberg 14:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- I think something very useful that is emerging from these art AfDs is the type of specific criteria that apply. Guidelines should follow practice and not seek to impose on it. Exhibitions, for example, are peculiar to artists and one of the main means by which artists demonstrate their standing. Provided that the exhibitions can be verified, then they may form an important part of notability. Most artists do not often tend, for example, to be featured in newspapers, and many art magazines do not offer all their content on line. These ideas need working through and I think the best way is out here in the front line for now. Tyrenius 05:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think I'm disagreeing, because I go back to the standard requirement about always needing published sources that are non-trivial. Where I think a 1-line fact about a "good" exhibition helps, first, is that this increases the likelihood of (eventually) finding written sources in more depth, such as a catalogue or review that might not be on the internet. And, second, being well exhibited increases the chances of being influential on others and producing written sources after the event (e.g. "X's earliest influences were the photos of A and the paintings of B"). Both those argue for 1-line exhibition references having a useful role in AFD debates, particularly in identifying articles that should be given time to develop, but IMO they are not a permanent substitute for published sources that have depth of content. Meanwhile, would it help to take the generic discussion back at the project page?? Mereda 15:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is Category:Art exhibitions which seems a rather mixed bag. It might be useful to have a "List of major art exhibitions" but it would need constant defence against the, well, minor ones. I think a regular exhibition can certainly be notable without implying that every artist who has been shown in it is - the Royal Academy summer exhibition for example shows about 500 living artists every year. I would not take the fact that an artist has exhibited there as in itself evidence of notability, although if they have exhibited every year for ten years, that is rather different. A link to an reputable external list on the visual arts project page or at Art exhibitionwould be handy. All that goes in spades for galleries! Johnbod 01:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info There's already a generic discussion that started Feb 14. --Mereda 16:12, 18 February 2007 (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.