Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aliza Shvarts (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus, default to keep. This was a busy AFD, in which many of the comments actually dealt with the appropriate treatment of another article, currently entitled Yale student abortion art controversy. However, with respect to this article, there were seven keep !votes (counting the nominator, paradoxically) and four delete/merge !votes. There is some argument that WP:BLP1E applies, since the bulk of the truly independent coverage relates to the 2008 controversy. However, not all of the suitable sources relate to that period, and the majority of the editors to participate here seem to be of the view that the non-2008 sources are sufficient to give Ms. Shvarts notability beyond that incident, which is a viable interpretation of WP:GNG. Steve Smith (talk) 05:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aliza Shvarts[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Aliza Shvarts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am nominating this article for deletion to test the notability of the subject. This is an article I created, as I was told it was a necessary first step in resolving the larger problem at the Yale student abortion art controversy page. Because certain editors have expressed strong reservations about the subject's notability, and yet have declined my request that they bring the article here to clear the air, I am doing so now. Vera Syuzhet (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2018 (U

— Vera Syuzhet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
This really isn't an adequate account of the situation here. Johnbod (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no, there was really no need to do this, as it seems to be a well written and properly sourced example of a Wikipedia article. Your article was the first I've heard of the topic and the individual, and both of these articles educated me about an event I had missed. You bringing this page here may be a unique (has anyone seen this done before?) and principled step in the process of writing a Wikipedia page. I also don't understand why it has received "primary source" and "too close" tags, as the sources are wide-ranging and reputable. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Randy Kryn. I'm surprised the primary source tags are on the page, were they added before the refs were cleaned up? Nanophosis (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, those were added after the refs were cleaned up. Vera Syuzhet (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
... did you see the last half of the refs? Every source used in the "Exhibitions and publications" section? They're literally all affiliated sources, not secondary, hence why it reads like a CV. czar 17:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside from the 2008 events there is still quite a bit of independent coverage and ongoing notable projects by the subject. The 2008 data then augments that, and combined there seems to be enough for a stand-alone BLP page. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the clarification! I don't think my vote will change, but this will be helpful for other voters. Nanophosis (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need the article on the artist and the article on theYale abortion controversy, as that is a highly notable piece done by the artist-- a subset of her practice.104.163.150.38 (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it is a "highly notable piece" then why does it have the title Yale student abortion art controversy? Should articles on highly noted pieces be called controversies? Wouldn't a preferable title be for instance 2008 Yale student abortion art? Wouldn't that be a preferable title for a "highly notable piece"? Bus stop (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments about the title of the other article are best added (if you must) to the huge pile over there. Issues to consider include whether it is about the artwork or the controversy, and whether the artwork ever existed, and whether that matters. Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into article on "abortion art" and re-title to approximately "Yale student abortion art". Both issues should be addressed at once. Vexations had the right idea. This compartmentalized reasoning is detrimental. Artist and artwork are closely related subjects. Especially in the case of a merely ten-year-old career. I think there should be only one article. The other article is about an artwork even if that artwork never existed. A concept of an artwork is still an artwork. We are not the arbiters of what is and isn't art. The sources all refer to art or performance art in that "abortion" piece. No source is referring to it as a controversy. Sources might refer to the controversy in the wake of Shvarts' performance art. There are many parallels between this situation and that found at Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight). That article is not in the name of Emma Sulkowicz but obviously a redirect facilitates search. The article is in the name of the main artwork. And "controversy" does not grace its title. The parallels end in that an important dispute involved the accused rapist (and fellow student) that was targeted by the "Mattress Performance", necessitating a separate article, titled Columbia University rape controversy. That article's title receives the term "controversy" but importantly it is not about an artwork. There is no good reason I can think of to have the term "controversy" in the title of the Shvarts performance piece. The name of that article could be the name of the artwork or a descriptive title such as "Yale student abortion art" or other possibilities. Bus stop (talk) 06:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Randy Kryn. Aliza Shvarts was born in 1986, thus 2018 is the year of her 32nd birthday. The article Yale student abortion art controversy basically covers the events which took place ten years ago, in 2008, with 18 inline cites, 17 of which are from 2008 and one is from 2006. On the other hand, the Aliza Shvarts biographical entry is a full-length article containing 49 inline cites dating through 2018. It does not seem reasonable to accept that subject is a WP:ONEEVENT personality dating back to when she was 22 years old and that the additional 31 inline cites are of no consequence, which leads to the conclusion that the biographical entry displays more than sufficient prominence to stand of its own accord.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 09:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That all sounds very logical, but suggests you haven't actually looked at the "additional 31 inline cites", which are pretty much all about, or at least mentioning the 2008 affair. Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"the biographical entry displays more than sufficient prominence to stand of its own". It is not a question of whether or not the biographical entry can stand on its own—it definitely can stand on its own—but the question is should it? The person is notable but only by a small margin—just like Emma Sulkowicz. A more important factor is that it only takes one article to do this subject matter justice. That is what we should be discussing. The primary question is whether we should have one article or two articles. My primary argument is that there should only be one article on this subject. Both Aliza Shvarts and the artworks of Aliza Shvarts can be covered in one article. Dividing this material into two articles does the reader a disservice. Most readers have a single unified interest in both the artist Aliza Shvarts and the artwork of Aliza Shvarts. One sheds light on the other. Bus stop (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have already lost two Requested moves on that basis, but just won't drop the stick. You keep repeating the same points, but won't accept that other people just don't agree with you. Johnbod (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We are trying to write about what basically is one subject. Are we required to have separate discussions when it is perfectly possible to discuss the entire subject at once? You are not responding to my primary point, which is that we should have only one article on the entire kit and caboodle. I don't care if the title of that article is "Aliza Shvarts" or "2008 Yale student abortion art" (or some other title, but not a "controversy" title). Do you see any great advantage in dividing this subject matter into two separate articles? What, in your opinion, is the advantage in having two separate articles on this subject matter? Bus stop (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article about performance artist nominated for deletion with no intention of deleting it - hmm... Keep, but, can we not do that, please? The discussion was almost unanimously "if someone else wants to nominate it, we won't stop them, but we will argue for 'keep'" - that did not mean "hey, let's have a deletion discussion among people all of whom want to keep the article". See https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/preach_to_the_choir --GRuban (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More like an exception to WP:POINT. Bus stop (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GRuban—do you think there should be two articles? Bus stop (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I think Vera Syuzhet and company have shown that Shvarts has independent notability beyond her first project, while the first project has sufficient notability to stand alone. --GRuban (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they can each stand alone, GRuban, but should they? What is the advantage in having two separate articles? Couldn't one article cover all the territory that needs to be covered? Bus stop (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. If we merge the two, since Shvarts's first project got noticeable coverage, we'll either have to rip most of that coverage out, or be giving the impression that her main focus is this one work, while in actuality it was just her student project, and doesn't seem to have been what she has built the rest of her career around. Her career does seem to be focused on the somewhat related gamut of feminism, gender, sexuality, and rape, but not necessarily repeated abortions. --GRuban (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You say we don't want to be giving the impression that her main focus is this one work but a separate article on that one work gives that impression. Wouldn't this article be very much like the Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) article? Not only the artwork in the title is mentioned in that article. Bus stop (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, don't buy that. I'm reading the article Macbeth without thinking that was basically the only thing Shakespeare was notable for. Yet if it were pasted word for word into William Shakespeare, that would be the impression we would be giving, due to the sheer proportion of the article it would take up. Same for most reasonable sized articles about works, and their authors. --GRuban (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read the William Shakespeare article. Is he another 30 year old performance artist like Emma Sulkowicz and Aliza Shvarts? Bus stop (talk) 23:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep refs over time establish notability. However some should be trimmed. For example the Women in Perfomance board reference amounts to a namecheck that is self-promotion of a cv item, published by some friends of the artist no doubt. About ten refs could easily be cut to reduce the puffed-up nature of the claims.104.163.150.38 (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)— [[User:104.163.150.38]|104.163.150.38]]] ([[User talk:104.163.150.38]|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/104.163.150.38]|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete/Merge to the other article (without changing the name). Actually I think WP:BLP1E does apply, at least so far in her career. Without the 2008 incident I really can't see she would be notable. Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and REDIRECT name to Yale student abortion art controversy where her notability almost entirely lies. Coverage of her has been in the context of that project, or is sparse and trivial; gNews search [1]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • E.M.Gregory There are many additional sources that do not come up in a Google news search, please consult the many scholarly and news sources cited in the BLP in consideration. In the event of a merge, do you support keeping the current "controversy" title, or changing to a title more in line with Wikipedia precedent (articles on artworks are always titled using the artwork's title, rather than a title describing the artwork's reception)? —Vera Syuzhet (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • E.M.GregoryAn appeal to the Argument from ignorance is hardly convincing, especially in consideration of the sources that have already been provided in the article. That your search (which, BTW is not guaranteed to yield identical results when performed by different users) doesn't yield results that support a claim to notability is both questionable and irrelevant. You have to show that the sources already provided do not establish notability. Vexations (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is silly that so many of you ignore sources. Yale spokesperson Helaine S. Klasky tells us: "Ms. Shvarts is engaged in performance art. Her art project includes visual representations, a press release and other narrative materials. She stated to three senior Yale University officials today, including two deans, that she did not impregnate herself and that she did not induce any miscarriages. The entire project is an art piece, a creative fiction designed to draw attention to the ambiguity surrounding form and function of a woman’s body. She is an artist and has the right to express herself through performance art. Had these acts been real, they would have violated basic ethical standards and raised serious mental and physical health concerns." The reference there is to an "art piece". Should we be overlooking that this as an "art piece" and misconstruing it as a "controversy"? Bus stop (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What has this to do with the matter at hand? Johnbod (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"What has this to do with the matter at hand?" Johnbod—you are saying "Delete/Merge to the other article (without changing the name)." Obviously the name should be changed. I quoted from one, of many, sources which indicate that it is an artwork that we are talking about. The title does not acknowledge that it is an artwork. The title misconstrues the subject of the article, calling the subject of the article a "controversy". Bus stop (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I keep telling you, you have lost two rename proposals over there. People just don't want to do it. Even by your account, the artwork took precisely the form of a controversy, so you shouldn't object to it being called so, any more than a statue or altarpiece. Johnbod (talk) 01:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have I lost two rename proposals? The first such proposal is still ongoing, although inactive. The second such proposal was withdrawn by me the same day that I created it. It was decided that a biography article on the artist was going to be created. TonyBallioni wrote "Vera Syuzhet: I’ve deleted the existing redirect. Feel free to move your draft there, which seems to be what is being proposed here anyway. Then a merger discussion can take place as to if we need both articles, and this RM can be withdrawn. Pinging Bus stop as they started this RM." As I see it, a rational discussion should take place including all the possible outcomes for this subject matter. The hassle has been the compartmentalization of these discussions. We should be able to discuss everything at once in one place. Bus stop (talk) 01:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The first ended with "The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title or any other title at this time, per the discussion below; it is possible that a separate article on Aliza Shvarts is warranted, but that is outside the scope of this close. Dekimasuよ! 23:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)". You have gone on adding below, but it is very much closed, as is the 2nd. Nuff said. Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how we can properly consider the second move discussion closed, as I have followed exact instructions on how to go about resolving that move discussion. I created the BLP, per instructions, and was told to "see if it survives." We continued going in circles about the artist's notability, which is why I brought the article to AfD. Currently, there are more "keep" than "delete" votes. Re: the title, I have pointed out many times that if we consider the performance a work of art, which we do, it would be literally the only work of art on Wikipedia not titled using the artwork's title. —Vera Syuzhet (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this AfD an act of performance art? I recognize the irregularity of this comment. However, given that page creator of Aliza Shvarts is a new editor with the, er.... highly unusual name Vera Syuzhet, which translates from pig Latin as Truth narrative construction; that Vera Syuzhet'a one-edit user page reads "Writer of fiction(s)."; and that Vera Syuzhet's editing had been dedicated to this page about a minor performance artist, I do think that we should at least consider the possibility that we are being played.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Another artwork? There was a bunch some years ago who tried creating fake articles "as art", which all got deleted pronto, Johnbod (talk) 01:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that the artist isn't real, and this is an elaborate con? I tried to check some of the references but got too many ads piling on and came back from those links quickly. If she isn't real, then yes, of course delete. But if she is, and the references are real, there seems enough notability to qualify for a separate page. (this comment has been a performance art piece) Randy Kryn (talk) 04:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated in my first post on the Talk:Yale_student_abortion_art_controversy#Requested_move_14_May_2018 page, I am a writer and scholar who is currently working on Aliza Shvarts's practice. IRL, I am an art historian and fiction writer who has no previous experience with editing Wikipedia. The arguments I've been making are sincere. —Vera Syuzhet (talk) 12:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I got this [2] from an IP on my talk page a couple of hours after noting that "Vera Syuzhet" is a word play name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In a perfect world we are all wordplay (you had me at "art historian"). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
E.M.Gregory I'm not sure if you're suggesting that IP edit came from me—it didn't! My arguments and investment in the subject are sincere. It seems that most Wikipedia users have usernames that are not their real names? —Vera Syuzhet (talk) 13:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It seems kind of foolish that we improperly title an article and then expect to make sensible decisions regarding whether or not a related article should be created. The first order of business is correcting the error in the title of the first article. Then, from that vantage point, we can weigh future decisions such as those concerning the contemplated creation of a second article. The sources call it a work of art yet we call it a controversy in the title of the first article. The correcting of that error is the first order of business. We shouldn't even be talking about creating a biography of the artist if we are incapable of titling the article of the best-known artwork as an artwork. It is ass-backwards to consider whether or not there should be an article on the artist when the most-well-known work of art is not acknowledged to be a work of art in the title of its article. Bus stop (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please WP:AGF. I have looked at the sourcing. It had not only persuaded me that the article on the art project controversy project, under its current name, is appropriate and that this one should be deleted. The Yale student abortion art controversy is notable as a controversy about a student art project. It is not notable as a work of art. Sources have not been produced to show that Aliza Shvarts is not notable for anything beyond than being the creator of an art project that became controversial, despite the fact that the page is stuffed with PRIMARY sources and with sources that feature he as the creator of that single project.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Aliza Shvarts was an art student enrolled in Yale's art program. Her senior project required the making of an artwork, which she did. The artwork was already completed when Yale demanded that documentation not be provided. She did not inseminate herself publicly or abort pregnancies publicly. The artwork is in the in the will to inseminate and the will to abort. The"documentation" is merely peripheral to the work of art. I think Marina Abramović makes this argument. The title of the article is taking a swipe at the work of art. That is the impropriety. It is unfortunate that our project is taking such a parochial approach to writing an article about a work of art by slighting it with a title that doesn't even refer to it as art. That is patently non-neutral. The documentation is not the heart of the artwork. The idea of deliberate insemination followed by deliberate abortion, multiple times within a defined, finite period of time, is the artwork, and no good quality source can be produced contradicting that, which is to say that there is no good-quality source saying that this is not an artwork. We are alone among good quality sources in implying that its status as art is in question. That is a ridiculous thing for us to be doing because article titles are not even a place for passing any kind of commentary on the content of articles. The purpose of article titles is to identify the subject matter in articles. Calling it a "controversy" in the title is entirely gratuitous. We don't call Duchamp's Urinal Duchamp's ridiculous urinal as that would be a slight to what all other good quality sources are calling a work of art. Bus stop (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The performance is notable as an artwork, which I clearly established in this discussion, and will reiterate here. The coverage surrounding the work is indisputably part of the artwork according to:
1. The artist, who writes: “The piece exists only in its telling. This telling can take textual, visual, spatial, temporal, and performative forms—copies of copies of which there is no original … The artwork exists as the verbal narrative you see above, as an installation that will take place in Green Hall [which was censored and never exhibited, but as you can see, is only one aspect of the work], as a time-based performance [the video documentation of which was never exhibited, but video documentation is but one mode of documentation, and performance doesn’t rely on documentation, anyway. Another mode would be the aforementioned “verbal narrative.”], as a independent concept, as a myth, and as public discourse.” The last three items claim the space of public discourse on the work as part of the work. This is not a new concept in art, especially contemporary performance and conceptual art. It has been theorized significantly as Relational art. Under the rubric of relational art, the discourse surrounding the work can easily be considered part of the work. Per the Wiki page on relational art: relational artworks “take as their theoretical and practical point of departure the whole of human relations and their social context, rather than an independent and private space.”
Given that, in conceptual art, artworks do not necessarily have to be created—the idea suffices—and in relational art, “the whole of human relations and their social context” is artmaking material, and in performances such as Rhythm 0 or Carry That Weight, the outcome of a given performance situation is not necessarily known by the artist beforehand, but relies on the participation of (willing or unwilling) collaborators, why should we not take the artist at her word that this artwork takes many forms, including public discourse?
2. Harvard art historian Carrie Lambert-Beatty, who coined an entirely new term, "parafiction," to describe Shvarts’s work, which bridges performance, rumor, fiction, discourse, mass media reaction, public debate, and so on. “Fiction or fictiveness has emerged as an important category in recent art … in parafiction real and/or imaginary personages and stories intersect with the world as it is being lived … parafictional strategies are oriented less toward the disappearance of the real than toward the pragmatics of trust … these fictions are experienced as fact.” Lambert Beatty writes that if Shvarts had shown the documentation and sculptures, this “would have destroyed the piece.” What is the piece, then? The piece is the parafiction, the story, the conversations with Yale, the rumors and gossip of a performance which can never be fully authenticated.
3. Theorist Jennifer Doyle, who writes, “the content of the performance has expanded to include nearly all reaction to it.” Later: “Shvarts’s project explores the discursive field through which the female body is produced and read as a reproductive body. She hardly needed to exhibit in the student thesis show to realize the full impact of this dimension of the project. In fact the interruption of the project by Yale’s interdiction brings the work to its most compelling formal conclusion.” Doyle then goes on to assess the formal aspects of the temporal performance, writing about Shvarts’s “removal of sex … [and] all traces of romance, love, and desire”.
3. Art historian Nikki Cesare Schotzko: In analyzing the “lack of [sculptural] materials,” Schotzko considers that the lack of physical artwork caused the “archive of immaterial documentation accumulating in virtual space.” This sounds like formal analysis of an artwork to me. And if you check Shvarts’s exhibition at Artspace, you’ll see pieces called “Banners”, which are print-outs of comment feeds on articles about the work: the “immaterial documentation accumulating in virtual space” becomes (or always has been) part of the work. Shottko goes on to say that “the project [was] restricted to … its linguistic narrative—both the narrative generated by Shvarts herself, in response to Yale’s censorship, and that generated on the part of what became a virtual audience to a work made virtual through the ensuing controversy.” So, the linguistic narrative generated online and in mass media was part of the project. Schotzko sees no neat conclusion to this restriction asking: “How do we reconcile the site (and cite) of Shvarts’s performance with its ongoing virtual reiterations? How do we reconcile the documentation of the event, to which we, as audience, have no access, with the event of its documentation, which we ourselves have created?”
All these academic, peer-reviewed sources, written by art historians, theorists, and critics, agree that the work’s reception—the discourse surrounding it—is part of the artwork. The artist herself claims this space as part of the artwork. Why are we so resistant to this?
No other artwork on Wikipedia, including controversial artworks such as the following, is titled after the work’s controversy. They are all titled either as the artist or as the artwork:
  • Myra (painting)
  • The Spear (painting)
  • Piss Christ
  • My Bed
  • Mirth & Girth (Note that this page redirects from "Harold Washington painting controversy, not the other way around. Editors on the talk page seem pretty unbothered by the idea that, although the article is mostly about the controversy, since the painting generated the controversy, the article should be titled after the painting (and be an article about the painting).
  • Adam's Song Here's a “work of art” which is categorized as a controversy, but is still titled after the work’s title.
  • Edward and Elaine Brown Here are some people who are notable only for being controversial, and are categorized as a controversy, but are still titled after their own names.
Also, please note that according to Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for creative professionals, Shvarts clearly meets criteria 3 and 4, and is notable. —Vera Syuzhet (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just say that all this reinforces that she is only notable for the single 2008 event, which is the relevant issue here. Johnbod (talk) 02:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Yale student abortion art controversy, for reasons already discussed to death at its talk page. Source review: If you remove the "Exhibitions and publications" section, which appears to be based entirely on affiliated and primary source refs that compose half of the bibliography's bulk, what remaining sources discuss the artist's oeuvre/career as independent from the affair (and suggested retarget)? For those playing along, those are the refs on the two remaining paragraphs of the "Career" section. Well, Schotzko almost exclusively recounts the 2008 media response (see my summary on the aforementioned "discussed to death"), the small art mag Out of Order ref is an interview that provides next to nothing we can paraphrase for an encyclopedia article, which leaves a short paragraph on her 2012/ongoing performance in Lilith. The rest are either excerpts from the recent Artspace show's catalog or primary/affilated sources. Anything we can pull from these would be out-of-place in the existing article about the 2008 event, hence the redirect instead of merge. We standardly build articles in summary style: If and when the artist begins to receive profile/feature pieces from reliable, secondary sources, we can expand and possibly split from the existing article, but until then, the subject of the extant coverage is plainly the media circus (events/affair/controversy) surrounding the 2008 piece, not the artist's extended oeuvre, biography, or the actual 2008 never-shown performance itself, about any of which our reliable sources say little.

    Non-consensual Collaborations (2012–ongoing), in which the artist "retroactively designates events and interactions not initially conceived as part of an artistic project as art"

    I'm not sure what there would be to gain from declaring this discussion—extremely minor in the annals of Wikipedia—part of an artistic project, but for posterity, we certainly didn't consent to an artistic collaboration here either. Had this discussion not been so prominently advertised, I would have much rather spent this time building biographies on underserved artists about whom we already have an overabundance of reliable, secondary sourcing but just no article. Such sourcing determines whether we are able to do justice to an encyclopedic summary without deviating into primary source original research, the latter being antithetical to Wikipedia. (not watching, please {{ping}} as needed) czar 17:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
czar—it is important that you understand that we are writing an article about a work of art. An article on that work of art should not be titled "Yale student abortion art controversy". The article is about the work of art. This is something you should address because it is at the heart of all discussions on all Talk pages related to this topic. Bus stop (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That article isn't about a work of art. It's about an affair/event/controversy surrounding what was reported as a work of art. The notable topic is the media circus that existed independent of whether the artwork even exists (and alas that is part of the artist's point). The contents are closer in lineage to a celebrity tabloid blow-up that happens to pertain to the art world than to a discussion of an artwork. This is how our article is currently written and also how the topic is covered in the extant reliable, secondary sources. However, this whole matter is a separate discussion and my defense is already crystal clear at its talk page so no need to get off-topic here. czar 19:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
czar—you write "That article isn't about a work of art" and "The contents are closer in lineage to a celebrity tabloid blow-up that happens to pertain to the art world than to a discussion of an artwork". How can something happen to pertain to the art world if it is not art? What is it—pseudo-art? Meta-art? Is it an approximation of art? I hope you can weigh in and enlighten us as to how it pertains to the art world but it is not art. Bus stop (talk) 03:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
czar—the Yale student abortion art controversy is incorrectly titled. That is the underlying problem. We don't write about a work of art and call it a "controversy". It is a work of art. We don't pass commentary in article titles. The purpose of an article title is to identify the subject of the article. "Article titles should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent." "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." Articles on works of art do not use the term "controversy" in the title despite the artwork sometimes being "controversial". The term (controversy) is merely a characterization of the artwork. That isn't what titles are for. Titles are only supposed to identify the subjects of articles, not to "characterize" that subject. Bus stop (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I think I've made the same point to you a half-dozen times but you don't seem to be engaging with it. And it's off-topic in this deletion discussion either way. czar 19:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally you need to stop compartmentalizing this discussion. There is only one discussion for anyone who can chew gum and walk at the same time. We are discussing how best to cover an artist and an artwork. This is a standard task that we do at Wikipedia. You are departing from standard practice when you argue "The notable topic is the media circus..." Stop it. We do not write about artworks or artists by instead titling the article to indicate that the subject of the article is "the media circus". Whatever Talk page we are on, you are constantly referring to the other Talk page. Stop it. The crux of the matter is the original and improperly titled article. Bus stop (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no specific reason, L3X1. Its presence can be attributed to paranoia and suspicion. I obviously did not put it there. Bus stop (talk) 02:48, 11 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aliza_Shvarts_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=845346121"