Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzan Bushnaq
- 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 no consensus. What we started with, and what we now have, are so different that no real consensus can be found in this debate. No consensus, with leave to speedy renominate if anyone feels it necessary. Courcelles 20:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suzan Bushnaq[edit]
- Suzan Bushnaq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Major COI issues, highly promotional tone, all the references are in Arabic and unverifiable. Should be a speedy, but there's a claim of notability. Still, the top relevant Google hits are her Facebook account. PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:A7 Even if the claims are correct, I agree that it's highly promotional and fails to assert sufficient importance. Msnicki (talk) 17:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:A7. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete; I'd have probably tagged it for A7 myself, but I suppose it doesn't really matter. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've removed the speedy tags (a7, g11), as I think this should be properly discussed. The sources in Arabic are allowed, as far as I know. Here is a link to the G-News Archives search result for her name in Arabic (سوزان بوشناق). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I think the Arbitration Award Biennial Kharafi, the Qurain Cultural Festival shows/awards(?), the Personal Exhibitions at the Art Gallery under the auspices of the National Council for Culture and Arts (the Kuwaiti arts ministry) and the verifiabilty and notability provided via the Kuwait press cited (albeit sporadically) is sufficient for notability via WP:Artists (Creative proffesionals) #4b has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition and perhaps #4c if the newpapers count for significant critical attention. I think there are some obvious problems and it might be best to cut the article right down to a small article with just the verifiable information. Our coverage of Kuwaiti art/artists is very limited and it would be a shame to reduce it further given we are trying to build a truly international encyclopedia. Also I think it is part of our job to try to verify sources in other languages when they offered. (Msrasnw (talk) 12:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- I completely agree with you (particularly with the last part of your comment). However, the article in its current shape is very bad and unacceptable for an encyclopedia, it is someone's promotional personal essay. Can you translate the sources from Arabic? I'd like to help you with the clean up, but I can't read the script. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment More important than diversity on Wikipedia is our ability, as a community, to verify the significance and facts claimed in the article. If we can't get a sufficient number of Arabic-speaking editors to verify this article and the subject's notability, it should be deleted. RayTalk 15:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The sources are all web-flotsam and it's unclear what the level of reliability is for most of them. Several, like the flickr and youtube are WP:SELFPUB, i.e. totally unreliable. Most of the other websites sources are debatable. WP:RSUE advises that independent English translation accompany any foreign-language source and those are entirely absent here. In summary, there is not a single source that could be interpreted as being WP:RS. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- WP:RSUE says nothing of the sort. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It does, see this: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, unless no English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language text and an English translation in the text or a footnote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians. When citing such a source without quoting it, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote or the talk page." Xxanthippe (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- No sources are quoted in this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Beg pardon, but what are all those links at the end of the article. If they are not sources, then this article is in worse shape than I had thought. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Those sources are cited, not quoted. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but that seems to me to be splitting hairs. I think the common-sense interpretation is that having foreign-language sources exclusively, whatever their context, on English-language WP is worth little without the framing of proper translation. Most of us here clearly do not speak, read, or understand the language. How in the world are we to assess this case without that ability? Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- It's not splitting hairs at all. The point is that translation of short quotations is allowable under fair use, but to post a translation of a significant amount of a source, i.e. enough to demonstrate that the subject passes notability guidelines, would be a copyright violation. Many sources are inaccessible to many readers for many reasons - most commonly due to them only being available in libraries in one part of the world - but that doesn't mean that we can't use them. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Phil, we just differ in opinion here, I guess. I don't see this as the same accessibility issue at all. The "availability" impediment that you mention is pretty rare, I would say. Sources are almost always available from mainstream publications which are documented online, or, at worst, available from large, say academic libraries, which at least a few commentators in an AfD can easily check physically. In other words, there is no impediment to the AfD commentators as a collective group. The "language" impediment is something quite different. Saying that a proper translation "i.e. enough to demonstrate that the subject passes notability guidelines, would be a copyright violation" actually places us in the obviously contradictory position of having to assess notability without having any material upon which to base such an assessment. Unless one of us reads and speaks the language, we're out of luck as a group. And even then, such testimony might not be considered WP:RS. So, unless there's something readable that all of us can actually make an assessment upon, it would seem we should err conservatively, since this is a BLP. Agricola44 (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You contradict yourself. If you are prepared to accept offline publications that "at least a few", but not all, editors can verify, you should equally accept non-English sources that "at least a few", but not all, editors can verify. I, along with many other editors, can't understand many of the English-language sources used in our articles on, say, molecular biology or advanced mathematics (even though I have studied the latter subject at undergraduate level), but that doesn't mean that we should delete such articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but you're now obfuscating "understanding" in a language sense with "understanding" in a content sense. It's obviously not necessary to understand the work of say some physicist (content). What we understand (in the language sense) is some secondary source written about that person or some database that tallies citations to their work – and these we accept as reliable sources. With databases like GS, GBooks, etc. etc., we almost always find this information on-line, so there is very little "availability" bias, as you're alleging. I don't ever remember a case where some editor went off, found an obscure source, brought it to the group, and had it accepted on that basis alone. Good sources are widely found in libraries and thus easily checked. That's the crux! If you, I, and other can't even understand the language that a secondary source is written in, how exactly are we supposed to assess it? To me, this is obvious nonsense. Suggest concluding this discussion with both of us (acceptably) remaining unconvinced of the opposing position. Closing admin will sort this out. Over and out, Agricola44 (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- You contradict yourself. If you are prepared to accept offline publications that "at least a few", but not all, editors can verify, you should equally accept non-English sources that "at least a few", but not all, editors can verify. I, along with many other editors, can't understand many of the English-language sources used in our articles on, say, molecular biology or advanced mathematics (even though I have studied the latter subject at undergraduate level), but that doesn't mean that we should delete such articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Phil, we just differ in opinion here, I guess. I don't see this as the same accessibility issue at all. The "availability" impediment that you mention is pretty rare, I would say. Sources are almost always available from mainstream publications which are documented online, or, at worst, available from large, say academic libraries, which at least a few commentators in an AfD can easily check physically. In other words, there is no impediment to the AfD commentators as a collective group. The "language" impediment is something quite different. Saying that a proper translation "i.e. enough to demonstrate that the subject passes notability guidelines, would be a copyright violation" actually places us in the obviously contradictory position of having to assess notability without having any material upon which to base such an assessment. Unless one of us reads and speaks the language, we're out of luck as a group. And even then, such testimony might not be considered WP:RS. So, unless there's something readable that all of us can actually make an assessment upon, it would seem we should err conservatively, since this is a BLP. Agricola44 (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not splitting hairs at all. The point is that translation of short quotations is allowable under fair use, but to post a translation of a significant amount of a source, i.e. enough to demonstrate that the subject passes notability guidelines, would be a copyright violation. Many sources are inaccessible to many readers for many reasons - most commonly due to them only being available in libraries in one part of the world - but that doesn't mean that we can't use them. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but that seems to me to be splitting hairs. I think the common-sense interpretation is that having foreign-language sources exclusively, whatever their context, on English-language WP is worth little without the framing of proper translation. Most of us here clearly do not speak, read, or understand the language. How in the world are we to assess this case without that ability? Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Those sources are cited, not quoted. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Beg pardon, but what are all those links at the end of the article. If they are not sources, then this article is in worse shape than I had thought. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- No sources are quoted in this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:A7 Not reliable references(Facebook, twitter,flickr). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertzerox (talk • contribs) 18:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC) — Robertzerox (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep. Has significant coverage in sources such as such as Al-Qabas and Al Rai, which are perfectly acceptable reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have tried to remove all the unsourced stuff and produced a short stubb using verifyable sources which seem to me to indicate clearly sufficient notability. Hope this is OK, best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment: That stub looks far better than the original. I'm leaning toward changing my vote to keep based on the sources cited. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you able to read and understand the sources and confirm that they are substantially about the subject and not just web factoids? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Reply on sources: The first ref is an interview with biographical slant - in Al Qabas a Kuwaiti newspaper - the second is more directly about one of her exhibitions in Al Rai, another Kuwaiti paper - the third is an article in Alam Al-Yawm and includes substantial biographical details and lists of exhibitions and awards - the fourth is in the Kuwaiti weekly Al Talea Reporting on the First Al Kharafi Biennial - where it list Bushnaq's Arbitration Award - and the last one also in Al Rai just mentions her Issa Sakr award. They all seem reliable sources to me for our purposes. Does that help? Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 00:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Thanks for the heroic work you have done on this article to cleanse it of its dross and puffery. Unfortunately, when this is done, little of enough value remains behind. Even if the handful of remaining sources is reliable (and we would need a translation to assess this), they are quite inadequate in number to provide the necessary notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Reply on sources: The first ref is an interview with biographical slant - in Al Qabas a Kuwaiti newspaper - the second is more directly about one of her exhibitions in Al Rai, another Kuwaiti paper - the third is an article in Alam Al-Yawm and includes substantial biographical details and lists of exhibitions and awards - the fourth is in the Kuwaiti weekly Al Talea Reporting on the First Al Kharafi Biennial - where it list Bushnaq's Arbitration Award - and the last one also in Al Rai just mentions her Issa Sakr award. They all seem reliable sources to me for our purposes. Does that help? Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 00:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Are you able to read and understand the sources and confirm that they are substantially about the subject and not just web factoids? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete. WP:A7, The sources are unclear. Masterman will (talk) 04:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepThe coverage in the mentioned newspapers is in my opinion sufficient, Suzan Bushnaq is a notable person for Kuwaiti culture and art. The article is expandable, the information is verifiable. Thanks to Msrasnw for his exemplary encyclopedic effort. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 18:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per WP:GNG. There are sources. The fact most of us may not understand the language should not warrant deletion. Frankly, I am getting a little sick to my stomach of editor Agricola44's pretentiousness, forcefullness and over-the-top deletionism tactics. Your arguments above with another editor show this clearly.Turqoise127 21:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you claim that the sources are adequate then please supply translations so that editors may assess them. Please note policy "When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language text and an English translation in the text or a footnote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians. When citing such a source without quoting it, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote or the talk page." You do not help your argument by attacking experienced and respected editors WP:No personal attacks. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Didn't you read my explanation above? Once again, there are no quotes from sources in this article, so that part of the policy doesn't apply. No request has been made for translation to verify any particular statements in the article, so the second part of the policy also does not apply. A translation of any more than a short snippet of any source can't be provided because that would constitute a copyright violation. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am making a request for a translation. I add, again, that even if the quotes come up trumps, they are unlikely to be sufficient in number to assure notability, Xxanthippe (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Didn't you read my explanation above? Once again, there are no quotes from sources in this article, so that part of the policy doesn't apply. No request has been made for translation to verify any particular statements in the article, so the second part of the policy also does not apply. A translation of any more than a short snippet of any source can't be provided because that would constitute a copyright violation. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Turqoise127 was blocked for the above comment, as it was yet another line in a long string of personal attacks on his part. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you claim that the sources are adequate then please supply translations so that editors may assess them. Please note policy "When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language text and an English translation in the text or a footnote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians. When citing such a source without quoting it, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote or the talk page." You do not help your argument by attacking experienced and respected editors WP:No personal attacks. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: Some translating attempts (my Arabic is not good!), a request to know how many sources are required by those asking for them? and a slight worry about the nature of some of the contributions to this debate.
Translations Here are some rough translating attempts - is this what is wanted? Paragraph 1 uses three sources Ref 1. An article Hanan Obaid Hanan (2009) This is in the form of an interview with Susan Bushnaq, in the national newspaper Al-Qabas. This tells us of Ms Bushnaq's Kuwaiti origins education in Russia - return to Kuwait - her exhibitions - her father (another noted artist) and some notes about her style. The last paragraph here is a quick summary of her life her
بوشناق في سطور
سوزان بشناق فنانة كويتية تشكيلية مارست فن الرسم منذ الطفولة بعد أن تأثرت بوالدها الفنان التشكيلي والنحات، اكتشف والدها موهبتها وشجعها على ممارستها، ثم درست في الجامعة في روسيا الفن التشكيلي لمدة سبع سنوات، عادت الى الكويت بعد أن حصلت على الماجستير في الفن التشكيلي وكانت لها مشاركات منذ عام 1988 في معارض داخلية وخارجية سواء كانت في روسيا أو لندن، كذلك تزوجت بفنان تشكيلي وهو علي كمال، وعائلتها بشناق أصولها من البوسنة أتى اجدادها للكويت واستقروا فيها.
Ref 2 An article in the national newspaper Alrai which profiles a cultural exhibition was held in the national Hall of Arts. Susan Bushnaq "a female painter who uses symbolism indicating vitality and beauty". This tells us about a Perosnal Exhibition of artist Susan Bushnaq being opened by the Director of Arts Hashem Rifai for the Secretary-General of the National Council for Culture, Arts and Letters in Abdullah Al-Salem. and it has some what seems to me quite flowery language discussing her art.
Ref 3 An Article in Alam Al-Yawm this also in the main body details her life and finishes with a summary listing of her resume - including her
- Exhibitions (Here google translate can be used as it is quite good on lists and the like)
Exhibition in the hall under the auspices of Boushahri National Council for Culture, Arts and Letters in 1999 and 2001 and 2002. Personal exhibition in the Art Gallery under the auspices of the National Council for Culture, Arts and Arts for 2006. Gallery Profile fifth in the Art Gallery in 2008.
- Posts
Charity art exhibition for the benefit of Kosovo Albanians in 1999. Gallery women's freedom of artistic expression under the auspices of the United Nations art gallery and ceramics artists in February 2000 «Hala February». Child International Fair in Russia in 1988. Gallery prisoner in London. Cultural Week in Sudan Biennale Bangladesh Chamber Opera in Egypt Kuwaiti Artists Exhibition in Jordan. Gallery Arabian Oil Company «Khafji» Heritage and Fine Arts Gallery of the United Nations in America. Kuwaiti cultural week in Algeria Festival in Alexandria Creativity Center .. The cultural week in Syria. Exhibition in the first cultural festival in Sharjah. Awards She holds many certificates of merit and the award for Issa Sakr 2004 and 2007 and the arbitration award Biennial Kharafi.
Paragraph 2 uses one of the above and also these two to document the awards.
Ref 4 Article in the Kuwaiti Weekly Al Talea Reporting on the First Al Kharafi Biennial Wednesday 24 Issue No 1425 - January 5, 2005 No. 1660 - this was just been used because it lists Bushnaq's Al Kharafi Biennial Arbitration Award (Accessed Nov. 2010)
Ref 5 Article in Al Rai(Accessed Nov. 2010) just been used to also identiy her as winning the Issa Sakr!
How many sources are needed? We have two substantial biographies and notes of her work in national newspapers and other articles which arent about her mentioning her in the context of her recieving awards. These seem to me sufficient for WP:Artists (Creative proffesionals) #4b has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition (these are discussed in the refs) and #4c the national newpaper articles seem to me to count for significant critical attention.
A slight concern about some of the contributions to this debate: I am not sure it is fair to criticise sources as all being web-flotsam and then to argue you can't understand them anyway. How does one know to suggest deletion in such a case? I think the suggestion to delete might have come after translations of sources or other attempts at verification if they were judged to have failed rather than before.
Also I don't see how A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content) is relevant as at all stages the article has clearly claimed that this is a notable and award winning artist with lots of exhibitions and critical reviews. WPA7 also seems to state The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines
Anyway best wishes (السلام عليكم) (Msrasnw (talk) 01:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Even more congratulations on your super-heroic work in providing translations. Unfortunately they confirm that the few sources are indeed, for the most part, web flotsam. The director of a gallery issues a press release to drum up business and some media outlet that is short of copy prints it, probably verbatim. Contrast this with the notability requirements for academic BLPs which required a large number of hundreds of citations from independent expert commentators who, for the most part have no encouragement to cite at all. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Reply to Xxanthippe - Many thanks for your kind words - but I am not sure how the directors of galleries issuing press releases is relevant here as there was not a mention of this in my attempted translations. All four refs are proper articles in newspapers. Do you have specific information about press releases. I too can imagine that press releases might have been issued by the national galleries where her exhibitions have been held - or from the ministry sponsoring them. But all that was listed here were articles in the national press. I have not undertaken an investigation of the sources the journalists have used. I think there might be other similar sources that we might use but I am not sure just adding the number would help with your concerns. Yes I agree with you the WP:PROF which we interpret as requiring hundreds - even a thousand citations in proper journals etc is in a sense more demanding than the criteria relevant here which is WP:ARTIST which seems to just require in this case that The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. I think here articles in the national press about the artist are sufficient. Best wishes and شكرا مرة أخرى على الكلمات الرقيقة PS: Do you still really think WP:A7 delete is appropriate - perhaps another rationale might be better (Msrasnw (talk) 10:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- This is the way the world of publicity works. A person who wishes to promote themselves forms a symbiotic relationship with a journalist (one gets the publicity the other the copy to fill up the publication) and thereby attains some spurious notability. Early versions of the BLP show that its WP:SPA author was a dab hand at promoting its subject but this article is far from being the worst of its type. It is the job of editors on these AfD pages to sort the sheep from the goats. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Reply to Xxanthippe - Many thanks for your kind words - but I am not sure how the directors of galleries issuing press releases is relevant here as there was not a mention of this in my attempted translations. All four refs are proper articles in newspapers. Do you have specific information about press releases. I too can imagine that press releases might have been issued by the national galleries where her exhibitions have been held - or from the ministry sponsoring them. But all that was listed here were articles in the national press. I have not undertaken an investigation of the sources the journalists have used. I think there might be other similar sources that we might use but I am not sure just adding the number would help with your concerns. Yes I agree with you the WP:PROF which we interpret as requiring hundreds - even a thousand citations in proper journals etc is in a sense more demanding than the criteria relevant here which is WP:ARTIST which seems to just require in this case that The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. I think here articles in the national press about the artist are sufficient. Best wishes and شكرا مرة أخرى على الكلمات الرقيقة PS: Do you still really think WP:A7 delete is appropriate - perhaps another rationale might be better (Msrasnw (talk) 10:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Even more congratulations on your super-heroic work in providing translations. Unfortunately they confirm that the few sources are indeed, for the most part, web flotsam. The director of a gallery issues a press release to drum up business and some media outlet that is short of copy prints it, probably verbatim. Contrast this with the notability requirements for academic BLPs which required a large number of hundreds of citations from independent expert commentators who, for the most part have no encouragement to cite at all. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Hegvald (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep The article at the time the AfD was started was such a remarkably bad example of promotionalism, that had I noticed it I would have speedy deleted it, thinking it best to start over. However, it has been excellently edited since by Msrasnw. By our criteria for artists, the subject seems marginal. There is no indication of works in major museums or winning major awards, just a small number of local awards. Xxantippe is correct that we usually discount material prepared by galleries where an artist has exhibited for showing notability, though of course there can be exceptions. Normally we expect reviews to be in appropriate publications--local newspapers are not really considered discriminating in their coverage of local artists or writers. But the newspapers publishing these are major Kuwaiti papers, but in this case, my own feeling is that they have primarily local significance for a subject such as they, reliable though they may be in general news. The content of the articles as described above seems to merely document the awards. (Needless to say, any language is acceptable. There are probably dozens of active editors here who can read Arabic,and some of them have in fact helped us above) The question here is the notability of figures notable in a national level in small countries but not internationally. (this has mainly come up before in the context of athletes from places such as Andorra.) In one particular field, scientific research, there has been a clear consistent determination that notability is to be judged by an international standard. In the field of politics, there is an equally firm determination that it is national, and all countries are considered equally. In the arts, it's harder to say. People who work within a genre particular to one country or region have to be judged on that basis, and for example, writers in Arabic are judged by the standards applicable to Arabic literature. I do not think she fits in this category, but it is hard to make the judgement. One article in an international art magazine, one painting in a major museum, would be enough for notability . If I were closing it now, I would say no consensus . But I'm commenting, and I want to say something more helpful, so it's weak keep, on the basis of my personal inclination to turn the bias to keep for people who work in the smaller countries, or those out of the mainstream. I do not argue that anyone should necessarily share my bias. DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my vote to a solid (if weak) keep. Msrasnw has done an exemplary job of bringing a puff piece out of the deletion log and turning it into something useful. My weak keep is for the reasons stated regarding the sources themselves, but I feel they're acceptable nonetheless. PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:30, 17 November 2010 (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.