Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathalie Quagliotto
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 no consensus. I considered that the keep "votes" are in general much weaker than those in favor of deletion, but there is still no consensus either way. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nathalie Quagliotto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non-notable, blatant WP:COI on the part of the author. Sources do not prove notability (hey, I've been on the front page of The Canberra Times, but I'm not notable) -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 05:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This user has twice removed maintenance tags from the article (first time POI and NOTABILITY tags, second time removed a SPEEDY template), and so is possibly being disruptive. Notified on user's talk page (next reversion would violate WP:3RR). -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 05:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Regardless of the other issues raised, she does meet our notability guidelines. She has been the subject of a Globe and Mail article: it's Canada's largest national daily and while the article is behind their subscriber wall, it exists and she is the sole focus.The mention in the Toronto Star blog article helps, too: though it's a blog and she's not the sole focus of the piece, the Star is Canada's largest circulation daily, in Canada's largest city. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete—the article text on its own would qualify for A7, as the article has no indication of why the article might meet our notability guidelines. If the sources are indeed good, why can't someone add a simple sentence clearly asserting notability? Why is the subject notable? —Ynhockey (Talk) 22:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. One mention in the Globe and Mail is a start, but hardly significant coverage from multiple sources per WP:RS (and is generally indicative of a "local/regional interest arts scene" article). As it stands I see no evidence of notability. --Kinu t/c 06:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know how you get "local/regional" arts scene when the G&M is a national newspaper and the Star is covering her in a different region (Toronto is not Montreal). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps my word choice was not as accurate. I was postulating that this was analogous to, say, an article in the New York Times about London artists. The subject is perhaps of local importance, but merely being written about in a nationally-distributed medium doesn't seem to meet the spirit of WP:RS and automatically grant it greater notability, in my opinion, especially when the "multiple sources" aspect is concerned. --Kinu t/c 17:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what spirit of RS you mean, but it seems you and I have different interpretations of the basic notability criteria of WP:BIO, and what is meant by "the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Good day to you, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- By "the spirit of WP:RS" I mean that being written about in a newspaper doesn't grant one the threshold of notability; after all, Wikipedia is not Wikinews. On a daily basis, theoretically, scores of artists have a piece written about them or their work in a major newspaper's arts section. By your logic, this would automatically mean that they meet WP:ARTIST, which seems unreasonable. Just as "notability" and "newsworthiness" are two distinct phenomena, so too are "notability" and "being noticed." --Kinu t/c 22:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what spirit of RS you mean, but it seems you and I have different interpretations of the basic notability criteria of WP:BIO, and what is meant by "the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Good day to you, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps my word choice was not as accurate. I was postulating that this was analogous to, say, an article in the New York Times about London artists. The subject is perhaps of local importance, but merely being written about in a nationally-distributed medium doesn't seem to meet the spirit of WP:RS and automatically grant it greater notability, in my opinion, especially when the "multiple sources" aspect is concerned. --Kinu t/c 17:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know how you get "local/regional" arts scene when the G&M is a national newspaper and the Star is covering her in a different region (Toronto is not Montreal). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "On a daily basis, theoretically, scores of artists have a piece written about them or their work in a major newspaper's arts section." Really? I wish I could read that paper, that would be some arts section. Theoretically. Look, I'm not going to keep arguing with you. Please have the last word if you want. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Seems to have reliable sources. --Joshua Issac (talk) 22:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Just passes enough to keep, but article needs to be written properly.Sargentprivate (talk) 22:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, nomination doesn't address the suitability of the topic at all. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment... part of the reason I can't see why the subject is notable is because there's nothing in the article that says why. It says she's an artist, it has her biography, and it discusses her art form. Even if the sources are reliable, I still can't see how to edit the article to show how the subject meets WP:N. Perhaps if someone could use the sources to clean up the article and make this notability obvious. That would help. --Kinu t/c 16:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If there are sufficient secondary sources that cover the person, that is notability as far as wikipedia is concerned. Ty 09:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't answer my concern, though. Michael Jordan is notable because he is a professional athlete, not because there are sources about him. The sources support the claim of notability, but are not the sole reason for notability. Again, I don't see why this person is notable, and that needs to be explicitly mentioned in the article. --Kinu t/c 14:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're confusing the general usage of the term notability with the specific wikipedia definition per WP:N, which is precisely dependent on the availability and quality of sources. If they are considered to pass the threshold, then the person is notable. The article will then have content which the sources supply, in this case, presumably, about the person being an artist and the type of art they do, which in itself does not have to be particularly distinguished in any way, though it may be (my comment is no reflection one way or the other). Ty 01:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I'm trying too hard to figure out which part of WP:ARTIST the subject meets... that and the presumed reliability of the scant number of sources rubs me the wrong way. The TKartspace article is a first-person interview/blog type site, and I can't speak to its reliability. The Globe and Mail article is inaccessible (I don't particularly care to register just to read that one article), the Star article actually appears to be their blog site and seems like a cursory mention in which she is not the primary subject, and the Fergus/Elora article is a brief mention in an art review about a larger academic project. I don't have any particular vested interest, but I am trying to figure out how the "significant coverage" and "reliable" aspects of WP:GNG are met here; rather the coverage seems "trivial" to me. --Kinu t/c 02:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was waiting to see if the article improved and adequate sources demonstrated, but I'm not convinced. It's not trivial, as it directly addresses the issue of her art and her as an artist, but there's not enough of it. Ty 02:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I'm trying too hard to figure out which part of WP:ARTIST the subject meets... that and the presumed reliability of the scant number of sources rubs me the wrong way. The TKartspace article is a first-person interview/blog type site, and I can't speak to its reliability. The Globe and Mail article is inaccessible (I don't particularly care to register just to read that one article), the Star article actually appears to be their blog site and seems like a cursory mention in which she is not the primary subject, and the Fergus/Elora article is a brief mention in an art review about a larger academic project. I don't have any particular vested interest, but I am trying to figure out how the "significant coverage" and "reliable" aspects of WP:GNG are met here; rather the coverage seems "trivial" to me. --Kinu t/c 02:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're confusing the general usage of the term notability with the specific wikipedia definition per WP:N, which is precisely dependent on the availability and quality of sources. If they are considered to pass the threshold, then the person is notable. The article will then have content which the sources supply, in this case, presumably, about the person being an artist and the type of art they do, which in itself does not have to be particularly distinguished in any way, though it may be (my comment is no reflection one way or the other). Ty 01:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't answer my concern, though. Michael Jordan is notable because he is a professional athlete, not because there are sources about him. The sources support the claim of notability, but are not the sole reason for notability. Again, I don't see why this person is notable, and that needs to be explicitly mentioned in the article. --Kinu t/c 14:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If there are sufficient secondary sources that cover the person, that is notability as far as wikipedia is concerned. Ty 09:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per preceding conversation. Ty 02:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm surprised no one has noticed this yet, but the entire article is copied directly from the subject's Blogger profile. --Kinu t/c 02:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well spotted. A copvio then also. Ty 02:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a {{db-copyvio}} tag to the article indicating as such. While the Blogger terms of use indicate that the author maintains copyright, the content (copyright held by the author or otherwise) does not appear to have a license that is compatible with Wikipedia. I'll let another administrator deal with it, as to delete the article myself would appear to be bad faith. Even if it's not a copyvio, the text makes it looks like blatant self-promotion, regardless of how notable the subject may be. --Kinu t/c 02:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well spotted. A copvio then also. Ty 02:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep--I fixed the article a bit so that it does not appear to be copied. I looked at her website and read most of the articles and was actually lucky enough to catch the Gary Michael Dault article. It talks about color, proximity, and doubling. Whoever wrote this article didn't mention that. I researched some more and the artist appeared to be in a show in New York at Art Raw gallery and Australia for a biennial. That person also didn't mention this info.Pianoplaying (talk) 13:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)pianoplay[reply]
- — Pianoplaying (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- 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.