Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ana Mesquita (artist)

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 Draftify‎ to address and improve sourcing which no one, including the nominator, appears to have an objection to. Star Mississippi 18:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Mesquita (artist)[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)

Draftify rather than delete per discussion below - This promotionally-toned article is on an artist who does not meet WP criteria for WP:NARTIST nor WP:GNG. All of the sources in the article are primary sources, from galleries of events she is directly connected to, press releases/announcements, or are about other people and mention her in passing. A WP:BEFORE reveals social media and more primary sources. She has collaborated with notable people, but that is not inherited through association. Perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON for this artist. Netherzone (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Journalism, Visual arts, and Portugal. Netherzone (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Netherzone,

I was the writer for this page but to be honest it is my first full page writing - I have double checked the references and I can vouch for the artist's continuing relevance in Portugal (e.g. she's presently commissioned for art on Portuguese national cultural TV channel - RTP2) and preparing an exhibition in Cascais.

I've checked that you've written very many well approved pages, so I hope to learn something from you - I will take the time to study your structuring, and change Ana Mesquita's page accordingly - the learning process to produce a good page is steep in the sense that the best-practices are sometimes unclear. I can tell you that once I noticed the page had been marked for being promotional toned I changed the text accordingly but did not see any change in status.

Thanks to you guys I'll continue on.

Thank you Port norw (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Port norw, thank you for your message. I've worked on a lot of articles on women artists and Indigenous artists over the years, so I'm familiar with the criteria for notability for visual artists. Please try to find sources that are fully independent, meaning that there is no connection to the artist whatsoever (not a gallery where she showed, or a place she worked, or a project she was involved with, or an interview or press release) - things others have written about her who are not connected to her. WP needs reliable secondary sources to establish notability And these should be in depth, significant coverage, not a name-check mention, or a few sentences...for more info see WP:SIGCOV; and should be in what WP considers reliable sources - see WP:RS for more info. Blogs, advertorials, or native advertising are not reliable. Sources that are mainly about other people (like some of the famous people that she has shown with) but only mention her briefly or not at all, don't really count, because notability is not inherited from others she associates with. If those sources exist, that could help her pass GNG. As far as passing NARTIST, see if she is in any notable museum collections, and if there are several notable museums or national galleries as that would be a pass for NARTIST. Also note that future planned events don't really count, those events must have already occurred and be covered in independent secondary sources (not the commissioning or exhibiting organization). Hope that helps clarify! My sense is it is simply WP:TOOSOON and in a few years there will be enough independent significant coverage in reliable sources for an article on this artist. Netherzone (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind answer - I will follow your suggestions and will change things accordingly. I will have time to start this later tonight, so I hope to have substantive changes soon. When so, I will reach out again.

By the way, I went through your work and picked some to read (a bit randomly, subjects that I felt could - based on name - be aligned to the needs of my article and I loved your work. Port norw (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comment, I am not familiar with the criteria foir inclusion of this kind of pages. But I note that there are several references which are not primary sources contrary to the nomination. They are not much of references anyway, except for one: rr.sapo.pt Rádio Renascença (a radio interview in one of the main radio stations on Portugal), the other two are dn.pt Diário de Notícias (but it is a dead link...), and publico.pt Público (not mentioned in the article) - Nabla (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Nabla, interviews are primary sources and non-independent. Diario is unverifiable, and I don't see a link for Público for verification. Netherzone (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Seraphimblade and @Netherzone.

I have been slowly but surely improving the page text and its references, and I feel I have brought it to a point that might - hopefully - grant your review of at least two of the previous status. Given I am a novice, I am not sure of the protocol to deal with them and prefer to err on the safe side by not touching them myself, although I saw somewhere that one might be allowed to.

It might be that we have hit an interesting issue: my thinking for building an English page for a Portuguese visual artist and for a Norwegian Historian, is grounded on the belief that English is the "national language" of the larger internet. I am aware that both Norwegian and Portuguese have their own wikipedia areas, seemingly with their own sets of granular standards (I've seen pages in both languages that would probably not pass an acid test in an English wikipedia).

When building a set of references - on those subjects - one is quickly drawn into a curious observation: most if not all references are in the subject's language, which will create a barrier for people who - like you - have the kindness to part with time and brainpower to evaluate the page.

On the other hand, known reference engines seem to give back much more detailed, richer and validated results. In this particular case of Ana Mesquita, one of the reference sites (MAAT museum, in Lisbon), where the biggest collaborative work was first presented, is known to have a poor museologic approach to artist's references and CV's on their website (it is better in loco, but there you go...). Which means that the best and most interesting reference to this work (here) is ... notably... terse.

So, in a perfect worid, one or both of you guys (or anyone else kind enough) would guide me a bit on the former issue and think a bit about the latter - all in all, the fact that English is the "offical language of global culturally relevant internet" while also being the official language of two of the most culturally relevant countries of the 20th and 21st centuries should align benignly... with your help?

Thank you! Port norw (talk) 09:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Port norw, Non-English sources are fine, as long as they can be verified. I'm familiar with the MAAT museum in Lisbon, and I see from the press release you added that she showed there with Gil and Couto, but am not finding that she is in their permanent collection. Please link here the three very best independent reviews of her work. Independent means written by a completely unconnected, non-affiliated source (rather than a sponsoring organization, or a gallery who sells or exhibits her work), and not a press release or a show announcement or her own website. WP needs secondary sources, like reviews on her in a newspaper or magazine article, or a chapter in a book, that are significant coverage in a WP:RS - more than a mention or a few sentences. If you can find three solid, in-depth, independent reviews, she'd pass WP:GNG or 2 or 3 notable museum or national gallery permanent collections, she'd pass WP:NARTIST in English Wikipedia. (Other things that contribute to notability on en-Wiki but those are the two that are usually most easily found in online searches). These should not be things scheduled for the future. Note that each language WP has different standards and criteria for inclusion. So she might qualify for an article in Portuguese Wikipedia. Also I noticed some of the sources are "dead links" check to see if you can update any of the URLs for sources that come up "page not found". Netherzone (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind and useful feedback @Netherzone - I've double checked now and all the sources that "dead links" had indeed been replaced, yesterday. None of the other sources are self-published, except for the institutional website of Viagem pelo Esquecimento, which is the only place where I found a complete list of collaborators. Some are newspaper news and references, some from TV shows.

I will now search for reviews and sources that follow your guidance and will come back to it. Thank you for your precious help! Port norw (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Without comment on nom, object to deletion based on the above discussion. @Port norw:, very good contribution, nicely written, just needs some sourcing work, especially since this is a WP:BLP. // Timothy :: talk 09:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with Draftification of this article to allow for time to incubate and refine it. Good idea, @TimothyBlue, I will change the nom to draftify, and @Port norw and I can work on it in draftspace; we have a good rapport so it should be a pleasure working together. Although I feel it's TOOSOON now, in due time and with more independent coverage, she may likely be Wiki-notable in the future. @Port norw, are you OK with sending back to draftspace for now so it can be further developed and resubmitted in the future? Netherzone (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2024 (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.