Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Artists

WP:DSARTIST

Please add MUSIC-related discussions to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Music, not here.

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Artists (in the visual arts only). It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Artists|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Artists (in the visual arts only).

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from April 2016) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Artists/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Artists[edit]

Juan Astorga Junquera[edit]

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

Subject has a stable article at Spanish Wikipedia but notability according to English Wikipedia guidelines for either WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC or WP:ARTIST isn't evident. I'd like to hear what others think. Rkieferbaum (talk) 01:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Artists, and Venezuela. Rkieferbaum (talk) 01:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn I. Walker[edit]

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

No significant coverage. May be notable, but insufficient sources for an article. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, Authors, Women, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Donating money to a university and getting something named after you in return (the Marilyn I Walker School of Fine and Performing Arts at Brock University) is not cause for notability, unless it leads to in-depth independent coverage, and even then it would be only one event. I found one published review of her one book [1] calling it a failure in meeting the purpose of its title, and useless for scholarship, but maybe nice as a coffee table book. Negativity aside, one review of one book isn't enough for WP:AUTHOR.

Note: there is another person with a similar name who meets WP:PROF#C1; we have a separate article on her, Marilyn Walker. I found this discussion via the academics and educators deletion sorting list, but beyond her donation to a university Marilyn I. Walker does not appear to have been an academic. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question - is this a case where a redirect is more appropriate? The Brock University article has a section on the Marilyn I. Walker School of Fine and Performing Arts. Almost all the coverage in newspapers.com talks about the building of the school. I imagine people will look up her name in that context, and a redirect to the section on the Brock University article would be useful. DaffodilOcean (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG and I can't find independent secondary coverage about her. Contributor892z (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Collins[edit]

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

Although this biography has many references, is it actually notable? Does making art that gain media attention due to their provactive notions create sufficient notability? No inbound links. No awards. No wider coverage that I can see. Seaweed (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, Politics, Sexuality and gender, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: More than enough good RS, 3, 4 and 6 are the first ones I pulled up and they're about this individual. I suppose GNG is met, I'm unsure if they meet artistic notability, but they've been talked about enough by others, so that we can also include them here in wiki under general notability. Call it a cultural ~~oddity~~ curiosity I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've looked through most of the sources that could be considered reliable, and none are significant coverage that I see. The "Time" source,[2] for example, is just three sentences and an embedded instagram post. Elspea756 (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sources 3 and 4 are good, as is source 15 (a reminder that BuzzFeed News is different from BuzzFeed and is reliable). Source 19 even describes the subject as "award-winnning". Toadspike [Talk] 07:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to SportingFlyer below, I think it's clear that the GNG has been met. For us to decide that people who get excessive media attention for provocative stunts need to meet some higher bar would require an RfC, or for someone to point me to some hidden policy/guideline I've never read. The media is biased toward this stuff, and, for better or for worse, we rely on the media to source our articles and determine what's notable. Toadspike [Talk] 11:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, honestly. There's lots of sources - too many, really - in the article talking about his art, because his art is provocative, but many of them are just links to self-promotion on social media. The article needs a good cleanup, too. I don't really see any critical coverage of him, though, that I would expect to see from an artist. Don't really want to delete, but am leaning delete. SportingFlyer T·C 19:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I must admit I'm a bit confused about biographical articles about artists sometimes. I mean, if your life is about creating artworks, when do you become notable? It's fine if that's your career and livelihood, but when does make you notable for an encyclopedia? Where is the line? I think it's also fair to say that a key feature of the artistic world is about awards, prizes, grants etc. It's quite commonplace. Therefore I do wonder sometimes if we give undue weight to artist who has this award or nominated for that award. I'm also a bit concerned that too much weight is placed on media mentions to justify a Wikipedia article. To be fair, I do find it hard work to read all the Wikipedia policies sometimes, but I suppose that's my problem. In summary, I'm still not convinced that Conor Collins is notable enough for Wikipedia. Failing that, it's definitely too detailed. Seaweed (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I don't see notability here either. The notability guideline for artists is WP:ARTIST. It is basically that there needs to be multiple reliable independent sources that devote significant coverage to the artist, or that the artist is widely cited by their peers, has been a significant part of a significant exhibition, their work is in the permanent collections of multiple major museums, things like that. I am not seeing anything like that here, it's all just insignificant WP:ROUTINE coverage of minor run-of-the-mill events, like that "this drawing of a celebrity by a local artist got several thousand likes on twitter." Elspea756 (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Corinne Silva[edit]

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

Not sure if this biography is notable. No references. No pages linked. Never quite sure with artists where notability lies. Don't think so in this case. Seaweed (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, Photography, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm guessing this is either an autobiography or other type of COI creation by a gallery that shows her work due to the entirely unsourced article containing many details about her. A WP:BEFORE search found a review of her work in Financial Times:[3], but almost everything else I have found so far seems to be gallery PR, social media, an interview[4] (primary source that doesn't count towards notability because no editorial content), a book review on F-stop magazine's blog,[5], database listings, press releases. I also found an online artist project for which she took the photos[6]. The Wikipedia Library found an in-depth article by TJ Demos in Photoworks Journal [7] (you might have to log into WP:LIB to read it). What seems to be missing are a track record of art reviews by critics or art historians, works in museum collections, so I don't think she meets NARTIST, but I think she may meet GNG. Holding off on !voting for now, as I'd like to hear feedback from others who edit in the visual arts/photography area. Netherzone (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I had marked this for notability in 2021. I was in the middle of another task, and did not get back to clean-up/delete. No improvement made to article. Notability tag removed by SPA without adding a single reference. I am not finding any RS to confirm claims made in the article. Fails WP:ARTIST. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC) Keep - Changing vote to keep per WP:HEY. I rewrote the lede becasue we still don't have a birth year or place and the second sentence was artspeak, not supported by the citation. I also think the unsourced last paragraph of shows should be removed. Only to be returned with sourcing. Article has changed from an artist statement to an article. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Everything about it leaves a bad taste. Nowhere near statisfying WP:GNG. MaskedSinger (talk) 07:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is nothing more than a artist statement and bio. Complete with the empty "art speak". This has no business being on wikipedia. Steelyphilly (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: As the article has rewritten I flip my vote to Keep. Thank you@Netherzone for your research! I still think that artist statements have no business being on here! Steelyphilly (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – A thorough WP:BEFORE finds that she clearly meets WP:GNG. While in the early stages of her career as an artist who works in the genre of environmental photography and socially aware photography, her work has indeed received critical/analytical coverage that one would expect a notable artist to have. While she does not yet meet WP:NARTIST, there is enough WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources that she solidly meets the general notability guideline. I invite WomenArtistUpdates, MaskedSinger and Steelyphilly to consider the in-depth reliable sources that have been found:

Magazine article on her work: Financial Times Magazine, January 2019 “Plants, Power and the Israeli State” by Shela Sheikh , https://www.ft.com/content/2847ba10-08b4-11e9-9fe8-acdb36967cfc (try clearing your browser cookies to bypass the paywall)

An entire academic journal article on her work: "Cultivated Affects The Artistic Politics of Landscape and Memory in Amman’s Gardens" by Colin McLaughlin-Alcock, published: 17 December 2020 https://doi-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1111/var.12219 (you will need a WP:LIB card to access this on Wiley)

Journal article by Caruso, Martina. 2019. "Conversing with Ghosts of the Previously Tamed: lens-based media technologies and non-human animals in the work of Christoph Keller, Corinne Silva and Basma Alsharif" in ESPACE art actuel ‘Point de vue animal/Animal Point of View’, no. 121 (Winter), pp. 28 – 33.

Book chapter on her work in: “Photography Reframed: New Visions in Contemporary Photographic Culture.” Editors: Ben Burbridge, Annebella Pollen, the chapter by Chad Elias is on her work: “Landscape Photography's 'New Humanism”, pages 175-186. ISBN 9781784538828, I.B. Tauris (I was able to view on Google Books)

Her book, “Garden State”, in addition to the review by Hans Durrer in F-Stop Magazine’s blog [8] linked above, there is this review: 2016 Book review: Corinne Silva: Garden State, by Francesca Laura Cavallo, Camera Austria, Issue 135 [9]

In addition to the twelve-page spread by TJ Demos linked above, (2012) Spaces of Global Capital: On the Photography of Corinne Silva & Jason Larkin, TJ Demos, Photoworks 19, ISBN 9781903796368,[10] there is this review: [11], this review [12], this interview: [13],

The article need to be rewritten, probably pruned back to a short stub with proper citations. Netherzone (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough. i will take a look. MaskedSinger (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

indeed. I added three of the refs above to the article. Still not finding any biographical information that can be used in the article. I will continue looking. I can't get past the FT paywall. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WomenArtistUpdates, Financial Times has a really strong paywall~! I can't get back in on Safari even after clearing my cookies. I tried accessing it on Firefox and got it at: [14] I copied the text from the article and will email it to you where you can read it offline if you can't access it thru an alternative browser. If I post it here it will be a COPYVIO. Netherzone (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Netherzone. I changed my !vote. Thanks for digging deeper. I could not see beyond poorly written article originally presented. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HEY, and if this one has been improved enough to make WomenArtistUpdates flip to Keep that's certainly an indication that things are looking up for the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrey Shishkin[edit]

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

Self-proclaimed painter. No notability, no significant achievements, no reliable art criticism. Cross-wiki spam. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article seems to cite reliable sources (academic articles), but I can't be bothered to go through the steps needed to machine translate PDFS (hence, comment, not a vote). However, source analysis is necessary to prove that notability is not given here - the nom makes such a claim but does not provide analysis of sources. It may also be worthwhile to check concurrent discussion at ru:Википедия:К_удалению/14_мая_2024#Шишкин,_Андрей_Алексеевич. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What is a non-self-proclaimed painter? Is it when someone is actually not a painter, but is called such by someone's else? Isn't that called hoax then? Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AGAINST Ты что, коммунист? что с тобой не так ??? << самопровозглашенный художник >> не можешь терпеть приличное искусство, настоящее, душевное искусство? ахуенный ... 98.240.113.219 (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emji Spero[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for writers. As always, writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage and analysis about them and their work in third-party media -- but this is referenced entirely to sources directly affiliated with the claims, such as the promotional pages of the subject's books on the self-published websites of their own publishers, with not even one hit of proper GNG-building media coverage shown at all.
There is a literary award in the mix here which would be a valid notability claim if the article were properly sourced, but as a specialty award it still isn't "inherently" notable enough to confer an instant inclusion freebie in the absence of any GNG-worthy sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Sexuality and gender, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article is listed for consideration under "deletion sorting visual artists". Perhaps a poet could take a look. Should we remove the unreferenced stuff and duplicate sentences and see what is left? --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meyer Ryshpan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Sources are user-generated, primary sources or trivial coverage (the phone book??). BEFORE search turns up no other evidence of notability as an artist or generally. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Very trivial coverage found [15]. No listing in the Getty ULAN [16], the artist hasn't gained critical recognition, with no sourcing in Gscholar found... The person existed, but that's not what we're looking for in a notability guideline. Oaktree b (talk) 04:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Poland, Canada, Connecticut, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. I added three RS to the article. While cleaning up, I deleted all the unsourced and unnecessary material, and re-formatted two references. I think the article should be kept largely due to Ryshpan's regular exhibitions at the Montreal of Museum of Fine Arts, and his entry in A Dictionary of Canadian Artists. There is also non-trivial coverage of his 1958 retrospective. It passes WP:GNG with at least two reliable sources. Curiocurio (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is definitely improved and I thank you for taking that on! but I question the use of MacDonald's dictionary to validate notability. It doesn't appear to be selective but rather inclusive of any artist (the volume Ryshpan is listed is just Canadian artists with last names R-S, that single volume is over 500 pages long, and Ryshpan warrants a single paragraph). Meanwhile, the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts exhibitions were not selective nor were they exclusive to Ryshpan. The spring exhibition was for many decades an exhibition open to all artists and often included 400-500 works (see page 2 of the source you provided). That leaves a short reference in Ayre's art column, and I frankly disagree that this is enough. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The main point is that three reliable sources are enough to get over WP:GNG, not WP:NARTIST. Curiocurio (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the question is whether a phone-book-length non-selective directory and an exhibition summary for a non-selective, open-to-all art exhibition constitute "significant coverage" for GNG. I'm skeptical. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Dictionary of Canadian Artists has been completed by the National Gallery of Canada, so it's hardly just a directory. Curiocurio (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY - This Montreal painter and engraver has an artistic background that deserves to be known. This biographical summary is well referenced.Veillg1 (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does the article clean up and new sources added since its nomination change anyone's opinion about notability here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Source 5 is about artworks displayed in a library, I'm still not sure that meets notability requirements. The Canadian artist dictionary is fine, but it's still a small mention. Oaktree b (talk) 23:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]