Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ANNA!

Add links
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 delete. ✗plicit 23:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANNA!

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

ANNA! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable artist. Possibly WP:TOOSOON CUPIDICAE💕 19:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't qualify for a speedy keep and being in one exhibition does not make her notable, especially given the total lack of coverage. CUPIDICAE💕 20:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More specifically it doesn't qualify for any of these: The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. CUPIDICAE💕 20:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
being in one exhibition does not make her notable and (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition
That sounds contradictory.
(c) won significant critical attention
Her art attracted the attention of the Bowery Boogie, so she is clearly of interest to street artists in the Lower East Side area, as well as this street art source that discusses the history of The Houston Bowery Wall which is significant to street artists. This has attracted the attention of journalists who wanted to interview her. She is clearly notable.
(d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
She has been exhibited at various galleries including 17 Frost Gallery and she even has her own television show that airs locally in Manhattan.
{a} become a significant monument
The Houston Bowery Wall is a significant monument to street artists in the Lower East Side, so her art on the wall became a significant monument as soon as it was discussed by relevant sources.Jaqoc (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I searched online and at the Wikipedia Library, and found no additional sources. It does not appear she was showcased on The Houston Bowery Wall as a featured artist. A blog provides a history of the wall, and when discussing another work, only states: "In the end this new work still held two months before being covered with the mysterious name of Anna in January 2018." About the same work, the Bowery Boogie states: "Someone named “Anna” rolled those letters across the entirety of the surface in white paint." This is not significant critical attention, and it does not appear to be considered by the sources to be a substantial part of a significant exhibition. There is also an interview with JetSet Times ("A Catalog of Cool Places") where she provides commentary about her career, and there is a brief mention in Brooklyn Street Art: "Background by Anna is a toy". Based on the available sources, it appears to be WP:TOOSOON for WP:BASIC/WP:ARTIST/WP:GNG notability. Beccaynr (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and when discussing another work, only states: "In the end this new work still held two months before being covered with the mysterious name of Anna in January 2018." About the same work, the Bowery Boogie states: "Someone named “Anna” rolled those letters across the entirety of the surface in white paint."
She created a new work of art by using the typical artistic technique in graffiti known as topping, becoming a featured artist.
This is not significant critical attention, and it does not appear to be considered by the sources to be a substantial part of a significant exhibition.
Why not? If it wasn't a substantial part of a significant exhibition, they wouldn't be discussing it and taking pictures of it. Given the unique nature of graffiti compared to other forms of art, these sources clearly demonstrate critical attention towards a substantial part of a significant exhibition. Jaqoc (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because a subject-specific notability guideline such as WP:ARTIST does not operate differently than the general notability guideline, and sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. A WP:SECONDARY source contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. The blog and Bowery Boogie mention, but do not add commentary or even identify her as the artist, so this is not significant critical attention, and does not objectively support a claim that her work was a substantial part of a significant exhibition. Beccaynr (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is indeed secondary analysis of her, as discussed below. The blog describes her work as "mysterious" and the Bowery Boogie describes her work as bombing, so this is indeed critical commentary that attracted the attention of the relevant community. And a reliable secondary source discusses her work as being a substantial part of a significant exhibition, as discussed below. Jaqoc (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs are generally unacceptable as a reliable source per WP:USERGENERATED, so even if the phrase "the mysterious name of Anna" can be interpreted as a comment on her art, it does not help support her notability. Also, a six-sentence report by a hyperlocal website using a term of art to describe what "Someone named “Anna”" did is attention, but it is not analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis. Beccaynr (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A weekly cable show that can't be verified is not what makes anyone notable. There is no evidence she or the show are notable - more specifically it's not on network TV which is usually the standard for show notability. Further, aside from the lack of verifiability of the TV show, if it does exist, it would be the equivalent of a weekly YouTube video, AKA meaningless. Anyone can pay to be OTA. CUPIDICAE💕 19:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence she or the show are notable
Being discussed in a biography sounds notable.
more specifically it's not on network TV which is usually the standard for show notability
Well no one is making an article about her show.
Further, aside from the lack of verifiability of the TV show
It was discussed in a reliable secondary source, so it is verifiable. Jaqoc (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The Jetset interview states that she wasn't "exhibited", "commissionned" or "curated" on the The Houston Bowery Wall, she simply tagged it - painted her name on top of Lakawean's mural that was commissioned/curated/being exhibited: I also tagged the famous Bowery Wall in broad daylight, which was super fun. Originally it was a mural that said “Lift You Higher” and I thought that it was lame so I wrote my name super big all over the mural. I think that got my name out there a lot more. More people respected me for being so ballsy. Every street artist wants to tag that wall and I just did it. It was only up for a few days but it was awesome. Let's look at the quality of the sources: 1) is a blog that simply mentions in a photo caption that her work can be seen in the background. 2) the Jetset interview is a primary source with no editorial content. 3) is a user-submitted profile. 4) is the exact same text from the interview mentioned above in BTW, the same publication too. 5) has one sentence that mentions her tag. 6) one sentence mention about the tagging. 7) is some photographer's blog with zero editorial content. None of the sources are in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. None of these contribute to notability per our guidelines for WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Jetset interview states that she wasn't "exhibited", "commissionned" or "curated" on the The Houston Bowery Wall, she simply tagged it - painted her name on top of Lakawean's mural that was commissioned/curated/being exhibited
And her work became an attraction that became the subject of discussion by reliable sources, so it was being exhibited in the context of graffiti.
2) the Jetset interview is a primary source with no editorial content
That also contains secondary analysis from the editor such as "Anna, a graffiti artist from Brooklyn, has been in the game since 2016, tagging her infamous “ANNA!” throughout various locations in NYC".
3) is a user-submitted profile.
Her biography on Artnet is not a user-submitted profile. Artnet publishes biographies of artists such as David Hamilton, Jean-Michel Basquiat, Yayoi Kusama, Charles Angrand, Alfredo Jaar, and Theaster Gates, each who have their own articles on Wikipedia. They don't publish biographies of just any random person, you clearly have to be significant in order to be featured on Artnet. Many Wikipedia articles such as Richard Bober, Jean Miotte, Liss Eriksson, Matt Paweski, Hannah Greely, Celeste Dupuy-Spencer, Jan Hals, Rosson Crow, Anne Packard Carola Baer-von Mathes, Henry Faulkner, Nate Lowman, Kika Karadi, Lynne Woods Turner, Mia Florentine Weiss, Nina Pandolfo, Emily Prince, Pinar Yolaçan, Samira Alikhanzadeh, Shara Hughes and Cornelis Rol use Artnet as a biographical source. Her biography on Artnet is a reliable independent secondary source that clearly demonstrates notability. And this reliable independent secondary source describes her art on The Houston Bowery Wall as being part of an exhibition.
4) is the exact same text from the interview mentioned above in BTW, the same publication too.
This is a source that isn't an interview, and it provides further secondary material such as "She showcases her adventure in subway systems and the day that she tagged the infamous Houston Bowery Wall."
5) has one sentence that mentions her tag.
Very significant mention in a source that discusses the history of the wall
6) one sentence mention about the tagging.
The entire article is about her tagging. It was clearly significant enough for them to discuss it.
7) is some photographer's blog with zero editorial content.
That provides further evidence and notability of the tagging
None of the sources are in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. None of these contribute to notability per our guidelines for WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST.
The sources are clearly independent of her and provide significant coverage of her life and career. Jaqoc (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaqoc, it is understandable that you want to retain the article, however I think you are misunderstanding our notability guidelines. The Houston Bowery Wall is notable, but it does not make her notable because she tagged it with her name, notability is not inherited. Just because ArtNet has profiles of tens of thousands of artists who are actually notable such as Jean-Michel Basquiat, does not mean their notability rubs off on her by association. There is precisely zero in-depth significant coverage - WP:SIGCOV. What would constitute sigcov would be feature articles and reviews in notable magazines like Art in America, ARTFORUM, ArtNews; a chapter in a book on graffiti art or a monograph on her work, articles or essays on her and her work in academic or art history journals. A sentence or two or a paragraph here or there in low quality sources is not sigcov. She is in zero museum collections or any other notable collections. She has never been in a notable show such as the Whitney Biennial, Venice Biennalle, Documenta, or exhibited in any notable galleries or museums. Netherzone (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Houston Bowery Wall is notable, but it does not make her notable because she tagged it with her name
I never said this. I said she produced work that was part of a significant exhibition as stated by an independent reliable secondary source, and thus she satisfies WP:NARTIST.
Just because ArtNet has profiles of tens of thousands of artists who are actually notable such as Jean-Michel Basquiat, does not mean their notability rubs off on her by association
I also never said this. I said it is a reliable independent secondary source, and thus it grants her notability.
There is precisely zero in-depth significant coverage - WP:SIGCOV. What would constitute sigcov would be feature articles and reviews in notable magazines like Art in America, ARTFORUM, ArtNews; a chapter in a book on graffiti art or a monograph on her work, articles or essays on her and her work in academic or art history journals.
WP:SIGCOV doesn't say anything about sources being "notable", only reliable. She clearly has reliable secondary significant coverage that addresses her directly and in detail.
A sentence or two or a paragraph here or there in low quality sources is not sigcov.
She clearly has more than a few sentences or paragraphs.
She is in zero museum collections or any other notable collections. She has never been in a notable show such as the Whitney Biennial, Venice Biennalle, Documenta, or exhibited in any notable galleries or museums
That isn't what her biography (an independent reliable secondary source) says. Jaqoc (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She has an independent reliable secondary biographical source from a notable network of art galleries, a magazine interview that provides secondary analysis, further independent secondary analysis from the magazine, artwork that is a substantial part of a significant exhibition as stated by her independent reliable secondary biographical source, descriptions of her work from independent secondary sources, thus satisfying WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST and not WP:TOOSOON Jaqoc (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaqoc, I understand that it is distressing to see an article that you care about at AfD, but your responses here are wading into bludgeoning territory. Please try to ease off going forward. Thanks. --Blablubbs (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ANNA!&oldid=1072684200"