Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xenia Benivolski

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 00:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xenia Benivolski

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

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

This art critic and writer does not appear notable. She has written a lot as a writer which is in the article but that is all. 🄻 🄰 16:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, Russia, and Canada. 🄻 🄰 16:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The extant sources already demonstrate WP:GNG. Benivolski has been doing collaborations with one of the most significant galleries in the world and has coverage in multiple major publications. Frankly the article sources, as they exist currently, also seem to support notability under WP:NPROF criterion one. Simonm223 (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for writers and critics. Benivolski has contributed to major publications such as The Wire and Frieze, received significant recognition through the national Gallery of Canada, and been involved in notable projects. There is coverage of her work in reliable sources, such as Artforum and e-flux Journal. I am happy to improve the article by adding these citations to address the concerns raised. Adeline2018 (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see lots of writing by her, and interviews of her, but not references about her, which would constitute significant coverage. Please clarify and "ping" me. Bearian (talk) 04:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like Bearian, I'm not seeing the coverage ABOUT Benivolski. Also not seeing anything that satisfies nprof 1. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find many of her own writings and interviews, but significant coverage requires independent references about her, which are insufficient.Gedaali (talk) 10:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. No improvement after requesting it. One added source was the same as the first one. (I combined them.) The others are either literally just one line (Tate Museum) or interviews, which can be used, but the consensus is that they don't count towards minimum notability. So she has some coverage, but it's not quite significant. Bearian (talk) 02:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm giving this another week on the off-chance that those source improvements are in the mail.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback! I’ve significantly improved the article by adding independent, secondary sources that demonstrate notability, reviews, interviews and writing about Benivolski, including:

Artforum, Canadian Art, Flash Art and Frieze articles analyzing Benivolski’s curatorial projects.

Recognition from the National Gallery of Canada through the War Art Fellowship.

Expanded citations to address prior gaps in references. I believe these updates clearly meet WP:GNG criteria, and I invite further suggestions for improvement! Adeline2018 (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian Thank you for your feedback regarding the lack of significant coverage. I’ve updated the article to include several independent, reliable sources, such as Canadian Art and Flash Art, which analyze Benivolski's curatorial work in depth. These additions, along with recognition from the National Gallery of Canada, demonstrate compliance with WP:GNG. Could you take another look and let me know if you have additional suggestions? Adeline2018 (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The National Gallery, which was previously part of my evaluation, is as a government website: by definition a primary source. If this was used to source an article about a village, then it would be accepted, but not for a WP: BLP. Two of the three references added (Canadian Art and Flash Art) are indeed cites but are unreliable. The other reference added is from ArtForum, which is a trade publication with the express purpose of selling art. In any case, whether we consider it reliable or not, the subject isn't even mentioned by name in the review, so the reference is irrelevant. When I taught legal writing, I found that even some sophomores had difficulty understanding the differences between primary, secondary, tertiary, relevant, irrelevant, reliable, and unreliable sources, but I was paid to educate them about what they should have learned in high school. Bearian (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian I understand your concern regarding its use as a primary source, but it does supports factual claims about the War Art Fellowship which is an associated project of the National Gallery presided by an independent Jury. As to Canadian Art, Artforum and Flash Art, all three publications adhere to editorial oversight, making them reliable per WP:RS. If there are specific issues with these sources, could you elaborate so I can address them effectively? Canadian Art, for instance, is widely recognized for its role in covering Canadian art practices. It is also worth noting that the article is consistent with the structure and coverage of comparable biographies for Canadian art world figures on Wikipedia. I am committed to ensuring the article aligns with Wikipedia’s policies and would welcome any additional suggestions for improvement, but I would welcome your perspective on this point as well. Adeline2018 (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ping @Bearian I would also like to add that, as @Simonm223 mentioned, the subject meets notability criteria under WP:NPROF criterion one. This is supported by the subject’s significant contributions to the field, including receiving the War Art Fellowship from the National Gallery of Canada and collaborating on projects with internationally recognized institutions. These achievements underscore the subject’s professional impact and align with Wikipedia’s standards for notability. Adeline2018 (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ping @[[User:Bearian|Bearian]] I would also like to add that, as @[[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] mentioned, the subject meets notability criteria under [[WP:NPROF]] criterion one. This is supported by the subject’s significant contributions to the field, including receiving the War Art Fellowship from the National Gallery of Canada and collaborating on projects with internationally recognized institutions. These achievements underscore the subject’s professional impact and align with Wikipedia’s standards for notability. Adeline2018 (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, still learning how to use this! Adeline2018 (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the subject fails the PROF test, as she has never achieved tenure. Bearian (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearianthat's hardly the only criteria. Adeline2018 (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, but it's the salient one. Bearian (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. Tenure is only mentioned as a qualifier for criteria five. Adeline2018 (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And for a good reason. Adeline2018 (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I can't find much coverage about her, rather than by her, or about her, rather than about exhibitions in the galleries she has founded. It may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I agree with RebeccaGreen. If there are sources that are ABOUT her in any detail, I haven't been able to find them. This may be a case where it is hard to search for them with so many search results that are written BY her, or a case where there are so many weak references in the article that it is not helping find strong ones. Asparagusstar (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2025 (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.