Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aldona Kmiec

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. The question is not whether the article has enough sources to satisfy GNG, it appears instead that there is no consensus regarding the reliability of the sources given. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aldona Kmiec[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet the requirements of WP:NARTIST. SmartSE (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete source describes the subject as a "local artist". The subject received some minor awards, but no significant critical attention. Vexations (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vexations: the subject of an article can be local and still pass GNG as long as they are covered in several RS. Also, she doesn't need to pass CREATIVE. You may want to re-evaluate. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl: I had evaluated those sources already, and I'm not compelled to change my position. I could have explained my rationale better though. To me, for an artist's biography, critical attention is key to notability. Who pays attention matters. Is it the critic for a major paper, or a scholar, or a writer of clickbait? Even in the same publication that distiction matters. It's why we don't evaluate reliability of sources categorically, but always in context. We need subject-specific notability guidelines like WP:ARTIST because sometimes critical attention exists but is given in other ways than articles in the media or peer-reviewed journals. Exhibitions and inclusion in collections of notable institutions are indicative of such attention because the curators (trained experts, reliable sources) at such institutions evaluate the significance of an artist's work before exhibiting or acquiring a work. The amount of work that goes into buying a painting at a large museum for example is enormous. I've seen dossiers that are several hundred pages thick. Even a modest retrospective can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to organize. A catalogue raisonné can take years to compile. So those indicators (exhibits, collections, monographs) are really significant and ought to weigh much more than newspaper coverage. The two sources that you suggest are good articles about her are local and attention solely from local media is not an indication of notability IMO. The rewritten notability guideline for businesses and organizations WP:NCORP has got this right, I think. Local media often report on events that have no significance beyond the region, and a residency at the Ballarat branch of UnitingCare Australia is such an event. The bio provided in the abc article is not written as a critical analysis of the work of an artist, but merely re-states what the artist herself has written at https://visura.co/user/kmiec/bio for example. As for the Courier, that piece is about a series of six works that were among 47 nominations for the Maggie Diaz Photography Prize for Women (a A$5,000 photo prize). Not sure why the award is not mentioned in the article about Maggie Diaz BTW, since it might be a notable award (but an artist would still have to win it to be notable on the basis of an award). Other than that, and the mention that she is one of more than 25 local photographers participating in the Ballarat International Foto Biennale fringe program (Note: fringe, not the core program), that article doesn't actually say much about her. In conclusion, there is no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Does not meet the GNG or any SNG. Vexations (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The artist is covered in several RS and so passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl: Which sources provide the substantial coverage that we require? SmartSE (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartse: Sorry for the slow reply! I think [1], [2] are good articles about her with the other articles adding enough to support GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG and is well known Abote2 (talk) 09:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided by Megalibrarygirl appear to satisfy WP:GNG, and I can see there are several additional sources in the article. Lonehexagon (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not sure how she passes WP:NARTIST. A review of the sources show they are all local sources from Ballarat, which isn't necessarily a disqualifier, but explains why I didn't find them in my before search. My issue is that there are only one or two sources actively about her, and going along with the NPOV problems in the article, WP:GNG seems marginal to me. SportingFlyer talk 02:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:BASIC and WP:GNG, noting that although sources are "local" (i would suggest regional rather than local), there is no mention of "local" sources being precluded in these guidelines, it is a furphy that unfortunately occur in afds on a regular basis. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perhaps a weakish one, but I think there is enough WP:NEXIST to support WP:GNG. Aoziwe (talk) 13:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 05:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. local sources are suspect because they are non discriminating -- they will write about any local artist (or writer, businessperson, etc. ) however minor. Their purpose is not providing POV information--its of making people feel good about their neighborhood. DGG ( talk ) 06:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the problems with the local ABC source identified above the article clearly states that "ABC Ballarat is the project media partner." therefore this is not independent. The other article singled out by User:Megalibrarygirl is yet another indiscriminate local pr piece. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete do not be sucked in by the promotion. The sources are minor and low quality. As are the solo shows on her CV, several of which happened in hotels and wine bars, one of which was part of the"Ballarat International Foto Biennale" that nobody has ever heard of.104.163.159.237 (talk) 11:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From one of the sources: "Kmiec is one of more than 25 local photographers participating in the Ballarat International Foto Biennale fringe program... The Ballarat International Foto Biennale fringe program provides photographers of all levels of experience the chance to have their work showcased with some of the best photographers in the world." In other words, she is a local amateur photographer. 104.163.159.237 (talk) 11:46, 4 May 2018 (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.