Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurence de Valmy

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Based on the discussion so far, it seems like none of the sources provided here actually satisfy WP:SIGCOV as they are either unreliable or connected to the subject. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence de Valmy[edit]

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

Laurence de Valmy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not finding anything in this article or elsewhere that would enable it to pass WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Edwardx thank you for reminding me about the unreliability of Forbes. There is still coverage out there, although it might be WP:TOOSOON. See for example this, this, this interview and this. Those are something, but I am pretty Neutral on this at this point.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is an emerging artist who has had some attention with a series of works based on imagined conversations on Instagram. The article was (prior to attempts to clean it up, wildly misleading. Claiming coverage in publications that never published about her (Merkur, for example) and solo exhibitions that were clearly not. The remaining sources are mostly blogs, interviews or "contributor" pieces without editorial oversight. I see nothing that meets WP:NARTIST and no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Perhaps once the artist has a career and a body of work that has received significant critical attention we can reconsider having an article about her. Vexations (talk) 12:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As pointed out by ThatMontrealIP the article is based on some reliable sources. I checked the profile of the Forbes Contributor and she writes very frequently about the art market https://www.forbes.com/sites/natashagural/#727d07bf581b. This article is also a reliable source this, and I would add her interview on http://artdistrict-radio.com/podcasts/art-interview-rencontre-laurence-de-valmy-artiste-et-instagrameuse-886 Pauljrmillers (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)User:Pauljrmillers[reply]
    Pauljrmillers, Interviews are primary sources and do not establish notability. Vexations (talk) 13:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ok I understand. I would point out this sources this, and the article in Bunte magazine (published on June 14, 2018)Pauljrmillers (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Pauljrmillers, that's a fair point and wsimag has been used in a substantial number of articles. See [1] It's a strange publication. It has nothing to do with Wall Street or the Wall Street Journal. It's published in Montenegro. The problem with Wall Street International is its business model: It's free and it features no advertising. They can do that because they get paid to promote their subjects. Vexations (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Vexations Interesting about the WSI thanks. How do you know the contributors get paid ? BTW I checked and the coverage by Merkur is legit thanks for raising the question. it's not online because it was a print version of June 7, 2018. It's on the artist website and the journalist is working at Merkur see an article here https://www.merkur.de/kultur/muenchen-zeigen-sie-uns-ihre-love-fotos-10913795.html. Is this article considered a secondary source ? http://lostinsf.com/en/art-market-san-francisco-is-back-to-fort-mason-grab-your-invitation-and-plan-your-visit
    The artist is showing during art basel miami. she might have additional coverage by then and it will be time to reconsider.Pauljrmillers (talk) 12:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Pauljrmillers, I don't know if the contributors get paid. The owner and CEO does, I suppose. WSI is not a charity but a vanity press. They have no discernible source of income. Ruben Vergara Meersohn, writes on his own website Most of my time is dedicated to Wall Street International, a cultural Magazine written in six languages for which I'm the CEO and Founder. I enjoy running this Magazine as we touch several fields of interest while involving more than a thousand contributors. We banned constant negativity and chronicle news, bringing the pleasure of reading to the internet.
    The problem with Merkur was that it linked to an article about a very serious publication, not the local newspaper, which is part of OVB, which still has the article available online.
    Do I think lostinsf.com is a good source? No. They say about themselves: Written by two French women who have made San Francisco their home, Lost in SF contains useful local addresses and thoughtful commentary in French and English on all aspects of Bay Area life as well as a distinctive San Francisco Rolodex of boutiques, restaurants, services and cafés. It's a blog. Vexations (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • about Merkur, the article was published on that newspaper https://www.merkur.de/ only in the print version which was about the exhibition Bunte Art. the article online is another one, thanks for pointing it out. I contribute my time and money to wikipedia because I think it's valuable but I have a question since I'm relatively new. Why was the page approved and then there is this debate? I've seen pages about people with less press coverage so I'm not too clear about how this works. One argument that I will point out since the guidelines to be considered WP:NARTIST is the point 2: she created a new concept, the painted instagram of the past mixing painting and art history research. I tour the artworld and it was never done before.Pauljrmillers (talk) 13:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Most of what you say is included in arguments to avoid. Donating to Wikipedia does not matter, nor does the fact that page was approved and is now under deletion review. As to WP:ARTIST #2, she hasn't really created anything that new. Richard Prince has been reprinting Instagram pages, which is the underlying concept, for years. The key to notability arguments is finding independent reliable sources. If you have more of those, add them to the article. Also if she was in a museum collection that would be of great value. Independently published critical reviews are the most important thing! ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pauljrmillers, Why was the page approved and then there is this debate? The article was submitted at Articles for Creation and accepted by User:JL 09 on 4 November 2018‎. I can't speak for them, but the central question at Articles for Creation is something like "Does this article meet our criteria for inclusion?". Editor's opinions, as you may have noticed, can vary a great deal, but in the end, a closer will try to find consensus in this discussion and make sure it is based on policy. Vexations (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete There are many sources in the article but they are by and large interviews, primary sources or low-grade publications of the type that can be gotten by sending out press releases. If there were one or two sources from more notable publications I would be convinced. It is close, but I am not convinced yet. The promotional aspect of the sources, and absence of true independent critical commentary, is less than desirable.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok thanks for the additional information I understand better how it works. I would point out that Richard Prince copied instagram posts already existing. She imagines something that never existed since it's in the past but ok. I do not know if she's in a Museum collection yet. She's in private collections of some notable collectors but that's all I know. I would point out that Bunte and Merkur are notable publications. France Amerique as well even if it's an interview.
    I would still recommend to give it a bit more time instead of deleting and then publishing again when she has additional press since she's on a growing trend but I dont know who gets to decide.Pauljrmillers (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pauljrmillers: we are deciding via this discussion. If the result is clearly well-argued keep votes, it will be kept, and vice-versa. I agree she is on the verge, we sometimes call this WP:TOOSOON. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ok thanks !Pauljrmillers (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I checked her press page here, and looked at dozens of sources. Lots and lots of short announcements and interviews, but there are none that are independent WP:SIGCOV, which is what we need. Many of the items mentioned look impressive, but when you check the actual source it is just a few sentences. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pauljrmillers, OK, the thing issue with Merkur is this. In earlier versions of the article, it said "Her work has been featured in Forbes, Bunte Magazine, France Amerique, Merkur , ..." That's a big claim, because Merkur the magazine is a very serious magazine. So when I read, in the lead, that an artist has been featured in such a publication, I understand that to mean that there is a feature story about the artist. But it turns out that the publication where the article appeared was Münchner Merkur, a local newspaper, and the article, referenced on the artists' website as Katja Kraft, "Sind Sie Kunst oder konnen Sie weg?", Merkur Munchen (June 7, 18), available as https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/714d89_5839a5d4e397499ea45583cc4b001baa.pdf, but still available online as https://www.ovb-online.de/weltspiegel/kultur-tv/sind-kunst-oder-koennen-weg-9953553.html does not mention Laurence de Valmy at all. I don't know if such counterfactuals are intentional or innocent mistakes, but there are many such errors. Group exhibitions were listed as solo exhibitions for example. These make the subject look far more notable than she is, and I am concerned that this article may be an effort to promote her work by misrepresenting her accomplishments. Vexations (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is excellent research. I'd say that I am concerned that this article may be an effort to promote her work by misrepresenting her accomplishments. sums up the problem when I look at her press page, as the treatment of minor coverage as serious coverage makes me skeptical of overall notability. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ok I understand about merkur, I did not know the difference between Merkur and Merkur Munchen. I do not know what you mean about the solo shows that were group shows but never mind.
it is maybe too soon but i've seen pages with much less so I was genuine when I created the page, being in the art world and trying to identify artists who are promising. Once again, I would vote for Keep to avoid deleting and then having to repost when possible. the stakes do not seem big to me but I might be wrong. thanks for your inputs.Pauljrmillers (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pauljrmillers, in this version of the article, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laurence_de_Valmy&oldid=921669106 it lists four solo exhibitions. Two of them, at the Museum of Urban and Contemporary Art, Munich and the Barnes Foundation are absolutely not solo exhibitions. The artist, somewhat deceptively, list her exhibitions under two headings: SOLO & MUSEUM SHOWS and GROUP SHOWS & ART FAIRS. But the shows she lists under SOLO & MUSEUM SHOWS are not solo exhibits at museums, they are solo shows OR group shows at museums. For us to list those as solo exhibits is an error. One of those exhibits listed was at a restaurant. But to a casual reader, it looks as if she's had 4 pretty major exhibits, which isn't remotely true. Vexations (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ok I see. Pauljrmillers (talk) 11:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
what about this mention ? https://frenchmorning.com/peintures-instagram-de-laurence-de-valmy-a-san-francisco/ it's not an interview. maybe not enough but wanted to check with youPauljrmillers (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not worth anything as it is an event announcement. See WP:SIGCOV: " Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage." ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Laurence_de_Valmy&oldid=922705510"