Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claire Desjardins

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. WP:NPASR applies. So Why 08:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Desjardins[edit]

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

Most of the sources are simply profiles, interviews or announcements. Granted, I found a decent source here, but I don't feel that alone qualifies under WP:ARTIST. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 00:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 00:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 00:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very poor sourcing, large sections of the article are unsourced, and most of the material is written by someone with a very close (if undisclosed) connection to the subject as evidenced by the photos. The only "decent source", is an interview in the style section of the Montreal Gazette, pays attention to her dogs and house and highlights " A cosy sitting area on the second-floor" as "an ideal spot to leaf through a book and unwind." That is not serious, in-depth coverage. Mduvekot (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article may not be any good, but the subject has been discussed at length on the CBC and by Magazin'Art, both of which are legitimate sources and establish WP:N and WP:CREATIVE cred. Somebody just needs to rewrite the article. :) Newimpartial (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a reference to the CBC. Am I missing something? Mduvekot (talk) 22:56, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is literally on the first page of the linked Google search. Notability decisions for deletion are supposed to be based on actual notability, not just what is in the article. Thus the requirement in WP:BEFORE to do the homework. Newimpartial (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, but google results are not the same for everyone. Why not add the reference? Mduvekot (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial Is this the CBC discussion that you meant? Mduvekot (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the radio interview. Newimpartial (talk) 00:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for Magazin'Art, that's an interview, with an introduction that mentions how she's often mentioned by blogs and webzines : "régulièrement mentionnée sur un grand nombre de webzines et de blogues influents". Those are precisely the kind of sources that we do not take seriously. Mduvekot (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have seriously looked through the policies and essays I can find, but I don't see why an interview in a Montreal art magazine wouldn't count for the notability of a Montreal artist. Care to enlighten me? Newimpartial (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability says that "If it's primary, our guidelines make clear that it does not contribute to notability." Mduvekot (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but context, though. 1) Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability is not a policy;

2) Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability also says, "An independent interviewer represents the "world at large" giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability. The material provided to the interview by the interviewer and the publication is secondary.... Interviews show a wide range of attention being given to the subject and should be weighted accordingly." It most certainly does not say that interviews are not evidence of Notability, which is what you and your cherry-picked quotation imply. Newimpartial (talk) 01:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The CBC interview is a softball Q&A allowing the Desjardins to say anything she likes about herself. The interviewer was there just to keep the individual talking, not to introduce their own thoughts. These kinds of interviews are broadly unhelpful in establishing notability. That's all in Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability. Mduvekot (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability applies in the way Mduvekot suggests: this is an arts interview on CBC Radio One, Canada's public broadcaster, not some fanzine. Problem is, though, I know this program: All in a Weekend is really local coverage in English Montreal. So much so that we don't even see it in Category:CBC Radio One programs. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I'm very familiar with the CBC's coverage. In their regional programming, they'll covert the most trivial subjects, like this. I've listened to the whole thing, and there is nothing in that interview that approaches critical attention. It's an announcement for a "live painting performance" at a charity event. This is not "Wachtel On The Arts". Mduvekot (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –XboxGamer22408^talk 02:07, 12 June 2017 (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.