Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raissa Venables

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 keep. Sandstein 11:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raissa Venables[edit]

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

I don't believe this article satisfied the notability requirements under WP:ARTIST. There are inadequate references in the article to demonstrate notability -- Pi (Talk to me!) 03:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Switching to Keep after discussion below. Delete A search turned up numerous name checks in long lists of artists, and a few short German language mentions. WP:TOOSOON applies here. I love her work but the page appears to be a promotional effort created in 2010 by her gallery. Notability not demonstrated by published sources. 104.163.158.37 (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added several references to the article which contain significant coverage of this artist. There is nothing wrong with using references in the German language. Subject now meets WP:GNG and therefore should be retained. Z359q (talk) 09:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see what either of those sources establishes about her. They seem to be lists of works, in one of them I think she just has a photo credit. Please can you explain in more detail what you are referring to to establish notability. I have no problem with the sources being in German and Italian (I speak both languages moderately) Pi (Talk to me!) 16:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say the same thing. The Hatje Kantz publication points to some kind of professional success, but it is not independent. It's hard to find significant, independent reliable sources. The ones added above by Z359q are either not significant coverage or not RS.104.163.158.37 (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. 104.163.158.37 (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep here is a CV. [1] She has solo museum shows, and two monographs written about her work. The article is a mess, but she is notable. I’m on mobile or I would drop the key things in now. Theredproject (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the museum shows and monographs look good on first glance but are less notable on closer examination. It's one monograph and one exhibition catalogue. The majority of the solo exhibitions are at a private galleries. I see two museum solo shows: the New jersey Museum and the Roswell museum, which does not look too bad. I'm not adverse to being converted to keep, but I think the notability is more marginal than her CV makes it out to be.104.163.158.37 (talk) 02:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... ok. I will look closer, and see what I see. It may take a day or two, as I'm maxxed IRL right now. Theredproject (talk) 13:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added another exhibition catalogue (solo publication of hers), the Jersey City exhibition at a public gallery, and a collection at a public institution. Though her web site claims her work is held in many more public collections, on first glance only three appear to be public. I have sourced one and have added the other 2 without sources so as to help us in looking but please remove these if you think it inappropriate to add without sources. -Lopifalko (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

104.163.158.37 take a look at what I added. I agree it isn't quite as clearcut, but I think it still fits. The NJM show was reviewed in the NYT. I disagree that a catalog for a kunstverein show published by Hatje Kantz doesn't contribute to notability. Per my convo on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucie Chan this is one step further from a museum didactic text. Lopifalko removed several permanent collections which don't have any/all of their collections online, therefore they cannot be verified. Given that the others I looked for were there, I am disinclined to simply TNT the others. What confuses me is that I cannot find any of the german press. I searched directly on the websites, and via my university databases, and I couldn't find the key ones (Berliner Zeitung, Die Welt, S-Z) but it probably doesn't help that I don't really speak german... Theredproject (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed one NYT article because it was merely a free ads type listing on a page with many of the same. The remaining NYT article is not a review, it is just a simple mention of the Venables exhibition ("Complementing it are solo photography exhibitions by Raissa Venables and Shandor Hassan, who are both based in Jersey City."), in a wider review of the various exhibitions showing at that venue. It might even be advisable to remove this ref too, or use it to prove the point of her residence. -Lopifalko (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lopifalko I put the NYT review back in, but left the listings out. Generally, there is no such thing as a "free add type listing" with NYT. Everything goes through editorial. Its not Time Out. The Benjamin Genocchio review in the New York Times is a review: it says so even in the URL slug. It is a review of all three shows at that venue. I disagree that including it is UNDUE. Theredproject (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Without looking too deeply into this yet, it is getting there but it is not there yet. Going in its favour are a book dedicated to her work published by a major publisher (I cannot tell for sure but it appears to be more a monograph than an exhibition catalogue, though it is strictly the latter); her work held in the collection of at least one major institution; and she has had a solo exhibition at at least one significant public institution. This alone appears to achieve minimum demonstration of notability for WP:ARTIST ("The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book..."). However so far there seems to not be enough coverage by independent reliable sources – is the local The Hudson Reporter all there is? -Lopifalko (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A solo exhibition that toured a series of redlink Kunstverein (the word means a not-for-profit organisation that operates an art gallery) appears to me to be another positive contribution to her notability. However, apart from the fact I do not understand the scale of these German venues, I have only found a primary source for one of them; I have found no third party reliable sources for the tour; only the web page for the Hatje Cantz catalogue mentions them all. Perhaps I am not looking deeply enough into German language sources. -Lopifalko (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ARTIST. Hmlarson (talk) 07:24, 14 April 2018 (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.