Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aggie Zed

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. Black Kite (talk) 23:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aggie Zed[edit]

[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)

Fails WP:NARTIST. Non-notable person. Graywalls (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet NARTIST guidelines for notability. Netherzone (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we have notability guidelines for artists. She does not meet them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Johnpacklambert, already said it. We have clear precise notability guidelines for artists & subject of our discussion doesn’t meet those notability criteria. Celestina007 (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - May not meet WP:NARTIST, but seems to meet WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. Multiple independant reliable sources, consituting in-depth coverage: Charleston City Paper, Our Coast, Art Mag Profile, Nashville Arts Magazine, and The News & Advance (VA). Samsmachado (talk) 04:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per WP:BASIC "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below". So not meeting WP:NARTIST is irrelevant if Zed meets WP:BASIC. Samsmachado (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss Samsmachado's sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"maybe" and not "is". It's not unusual for local papers to have detailed profile of exhibitors. The Cannon Beach source is a local paper talking in-depth about then upcoming local event. Same with Charleston. These routine coverage discussing exhibits for a traveling artist does not, in my opinion support notability. Graywalls (talk) 09:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:ROUTINE are sub policies of WP:EVENT and not WP:BIO therefore have no bearing on BIO criteria or GNG outside of events. So "routine coverage discussing exhibits for a travelling artist" only doesn't support notability "in [your] opinion". Whenever possible support your opinions with actual policies/guidelines in order to have constructive AfD discussions. Bearing that in mind, the article plenty cites more than Charleston and Cannon beach (see my rational in previous !vote for some examples, see article itself for more), so should meet GNG regardless. Samsmachado (talk) 04:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, by opinion I have meant by my reading of the policies and guidelines. In WP:PERSON, it reads that trivial coverage "may not be enough" and whenever something is a "may" there's room for interpretation. The foot notes in the WP:PERSON gets into what's trivial. I would say announcement pages, or artist profile pages in magazines fit in the trivial category. Graywalls (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To quote WP:PERSON footnote 7: "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") that does not discuss the subject in detail. A credible 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial, whereas a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not." Which of the sources are you questioning the credibility of? Because a profile (as in a written portrait of a person compiled by a party that is not Zed - ie. Art Mag or NewsAdvance or Nashville Arts or Charleston City) is clearly in-depth (ie. non-trivial). Samsmachado (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that those things are not trivial. They're just routine biography of the presenter that's about to host a show... in show announcements. It's not something written by unrelated people. They're written for the purpose of advertising the show as done for all the exhibitors/presenters. Graywalls (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls. That is literally not the definition of triviality (see my above quote and/or a dictionary). Triviality has to do with significance in terms of how much substance there is directly about the subject. It is literally a matter of quantity. You are taking issue with whether the sources are independant of the subject. (perhaps you are thinking these sources are alike to press releases?) I think your issue with the independence of the sources is semi-unfounded as plenty of the sources I have pointed out are from city papers, ie. not directly affiliated with galleries and thereby not even secondarily related to Zed. Also, re: the "may"/"maybe" qualm, almost every policy on Wikipedia is written in that form because the policies are meant to always have exceptions and encourage discussion. Hope this clarified things! (and sorry for not getting back to this for days) Samsmachado (talk) 04:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unfortunately does not meet WP:Artist or WP:Basic. The BLP has been mentioned on the Women in Red talk page. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe Per WP:JUSTA, could you explain why Zed does not meet WP:BASIC (ie. explain that there is not "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject"). Just trying to make sure this discussion is indeed a discussion and not just listing of policies, especially given that the first relisting was to "discuss" the sources I previously pointed out. (in the interest of transparency, yes, I did list this AfD at WiR because the double relisting hadn't garnered any discussion from editors not previously involved. as I said there, I don't particularly care which way people vote; I would be asking for more of a discussion from a keep vote too.) Samsmachado (talk) 17:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Advice sometimes given to newish editors of BLPs is go for the low-hanging fruit: i.e. avoid the border-line cases and write about people whose notability is so well established that there is no possibility of blowback as here. The border-line cases waste the time of editors and sometimes do harm to the subject of them. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe. Thanks for the advice. (I did not write the Zed article but I'm sure that editor would be happy to hear your thoughts. I myself am newish in terms of time on Wiki, but I have logged over 1000 edits mostly working on BLPs with WiR so I am well educated on policies. My advice: in the future, save advice for user talk pages unless it is explicitly relevant to the deletion discussion so as to not clog the AfD.) Could you please clarify your !vote as I asked before. Per WP:JUSTA and WP:ATA, deletions are discussions and you should contribute to them as such. Therefore avoid citing policies without justification and explanation. Apologies if you feel as though contributing to AfD discussions is a waste of time. Samsmachado (talk) 02:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons for deletion are given above. Please stop badgering editors and leave it to the closing administrator to assess contributions to the AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Of all the artist listed here, I feel Aggie Zed has the most reliable secondary sources and meets WP:BASIC guidelines. I was impressed with her artwork, souces, and bio. I think the article could be improved with a photo and fix broken links. If I was looking for ceramic sculpture artists, I would learn something from this article. --Greg Henderson (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

requesting clarification I noticed the discussion on COI/N and I am wondering, do you personally know Aggie Zed or have any personal or professional relation connection with her? Graywalls (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Graywalls I do not know Aggie Zed but came accross her when reading this Articles for deletion page. --Greg Henderson (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Graywalls (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as non-notable, like many other Mitzi Humphrey creations. --Lockley (talk) 02:11, 12 July 2020 (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.