Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanya Doskova

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. Some good editors have attempted to properly source this WP:COI vio, but have been unsuccessful. Asserting WP:N is not enough, WP:RS is. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Doskova[edit]

Tanya Doskova (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)

I set out to source this unsourced BLP and figured I would be able to upon reading the article, but I'm finding essentially zero coverage in reliable secondary sources. Doskova seems to be an accomplished artist and has won some awards, but I'm not sure they are particularly notable (for example a Google News archives search for "John Purcell Prize", comes up with no hits, and even a general Google search only has a few hundred, with about half on the first page mentioning Doskova). Searching Gnews archives for Doskova herself comes up with just one hit, an article that is not at all primarily about her. Google scholar and books yield nothing at all. One could argue that Doskova might meet criteria 4B of WP:ARTIST but even that is unclear. My argument is that she has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (indeed practically none from what I can tell), and as such I think Doskova fails the general notability guideline. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per the article talk page, I also took a stab at sourcing the article. There is a veneer of notability, but once you scratch the surface there really isn't much there at all. The verifiability issue is also worrisome. --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 21:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I also took a stab at sourcing. One incarnation of the "John Purcell Prize" appears to be closely associated with the Royal College of Art; of the handful of winners of the prize I could find on the web, 2 had been students at the college at or about the time they won. There also seems to be a version of the prize associated with a Welsh printmaking event; it may be a national student prize or something but doesn't appear to be notable in itself. She seems to be a serious artist, but the lack of sourcing is suggesting a lack of notability. Studerby (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that the sourcing appears to be a problem. However, the subject appears to have had a enduring career, with recognition of her work at certain times. There is an identifiable body of work that suggests notability. Stormbay (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree there's definitely "an identifiable body of work" and I had initially assumed that would probably allow us to source this, but that does not seem to be the case. If we can't find reliable sources that discuss her (arguably even at all, but certainly not "significantly" per WP:GNG), we really have no choice but to delete. If someone finds sources that would be a different matter. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To meet WP:BLP policy it is not enough to simply say you're notable, you must be able to verify it as well. Any single editor could claim that they have won a selection of boderline notable awards, but if it is not backed up by reliable independent sources it simply cannot stay. If all the unsourced claimes of prizes and awards are removed from this article there is nothing left to support inclusion. That's not to say that there can never be an article on this particular artist, but given the current paucity of independent coverage and unverifiability of the material, the article should be deleted.Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 15:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete me Johnbod. Are you blind. Look at my art. I am one of the best. I'm pleased to announce that:

Series of my latest Illustrations were selected to appear in Illustration Annual 51, the May/June 2010 issue of Communication Art. Wait for the issue to come out.....don't be such a bureaucrat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.219.57 (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ms. Doskova, I imagine this might be a bit frustrating, as it seems there's a good chance the article about you will be deleted. If that happens it does not at all mean we are saying you are not a "notable artist" in the traditional sense of the term, rather it means you, like most people, are perhaps not notable as the term is understood here on Wikipedia (the meaning is quite specific and may seem a bit bureaucratic and/or arbitrary, but there is some logic behind it). The main problem is that we really cannot do as you suggest, i.e. judge your body of work and write an article. To do so would be a form of original research which is verboten for Wikipedia articles (though sometimes it sneaks in and we don't catch it). Since Wikipedia is a "tertiary" source, all of our articles need to be based not on the personal analyses of the people who write the articles (or on the personal web sites of article subjects), but rather on reliable secondary sources (newspaper or journal articles, books, etc.) that discuss the significance of the person or topic in question. The problem we are having here is that, while you are clearly accomplished in your field(s), there do not seem to be many (if any) secondary sources that discuss you and your work. If we had some of these we could and would retain the article and simply source/improve it, but so far efforts to find such sources have not really yielded anything. If this article is deleted, and your work is later discussed more thoroughly in reliable secondary sources, we could certainly bring it back from deletion (any Wikipedia administrator has the ability to do this) and add the new information. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check out this Book source (not online- just a book):Creative Source 17, page C-38, my art image and name as a golden award winner in 1996 Wilcord Publications Inc ;ISBN 0-920986-33-1, ISSN 0709-7727, Printed in Canada

http://www.canada-culture.tv/Studio1/arts-visuels-TanyaDoskova-EN.html http://www.lqaf.com/artist-galleries/printmaking/tanya-doskova/ http://www.woodlandsartsfestival.com Not every reliable source or article is published on line. Publishing art articles are in many cases not a reflection of artist real value but a mere advertising spin. I have to paint .....I don't have time for this...... signed Tanya Doskova

  • Delete Unverified material doesn't have a place, and the sources don't meet WP:N. For how to reference, see WP:REFB. Ty 07:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is Tyrenius and what is he done in life. What makes him good enough to to have a say in the art world. How do I know the bureaucrats are doing good reference research about an article. For Example: I read the article on Digital Painting in Wikipedia. It is very shallow and questionable. It shows that is written by people that have never done digital painting (these people used "references"). I paint digitally full time for the last 12 years and I am one of the best in it. You can see my art and articles about me on the internet by just Google searching my name. Everything in Tanya Doskova article shows truth achievements. CAPIC doesn't publish 1996/1997 award winners on their page, but you can see my awards in the book Creative Saurce 17 ;ISBN 0-920986-33-1, ISSN 0709-7727, Printed in Canada. What is the purpose of Wikipedia. The internet is not the only source. There are libraries as well. Signed by the artist Tanya Doskova. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.219.57 (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what Tyrenius has done "in life" but that editor has been contributing to Wikipedia for years, has gained trust of other editors by virtue of becoming an administrator, and has written a number of articles. Lashing out at the people commenting here really does not help your case—we're all just volunteers trying to help make Wikipedia a better reference source. There are certain guidelines for how we do that, including guidelines about what does and does not belong, and those commenting here are keeping those standards in mind and are certainly not trying to do you (or the art world) an injustice. As to the book you mention, I don't have access to it and probably others do not as well. However if you could post a note here explaining what exactly is said about you there (along with the page number where it is discussed) then that might help in terms of sourcing, though it's no guarantee that the article would be kept. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tanya - Tyrenius is one of the best art editors here, he has both knowledge and experience and the capacity to determine notability; and he is aware of all aspects of the visual arts. The problem with the article is there are basically no references. There are external links to internet sites, but we are asking for you to provide reviews, are you in any important art museum collections? Can you begin to try to understand the differences between referencing and linking? My suggestion here is for you to try to reference your article more thoroughly. Please quickly learn because the clock is ticking here...Modernist (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My art is in private collections all around North America. I took part in nearly 18 Art festivals last year and the year before that. I just won in Communication Arts Magazine competition. Series of my latest Illustrations will appear in Illustration Annual 51, the May/June 2010 issue of Communication Arts. One can buy it at any book store around the world. Please delete the article, I couldn't care less for being judged by people like you....... I do not think becoming a volunteer administrator or bureaucrat is a virtue. The clock is ticking for you my friend .... All that would be left from you is bureaucratic bla..bla..bla. How many books have you published on art? the artist Tanya Doskova —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.219.57 (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — The number of books he has published on art would not be a relevant issue because he is not trying to supply sources that might establish noteworthiness for the purpose of justifying an article on Wikipedia. I'm sure you understand that not every article is worth standing on Wikipedia. Some articles are good enough, and some simply have to be weeded out. I am not saying one way or the other concerning you. Your artwork seems great. But we are not empowered to make aesthetic choices. (And I am sure we would endlessly disagree with one another if we were allowed to make aesthetic decisions.) We are supposed to check to see that substantial sources confirm that the artist in question has been recognized by a sufficient degree of media sources. There are also other factors that can come into play. But the deciding factors concern sources to establish that the character is significant enough to warrant the article. You might consider trying to supply sources. Or you might consider resubmitting material at a future time (a year from now? a few months from now?) when more material is available. Best.
As Tyrenius suggested above, you might consider reading material on this process such as WP:N and especially WP:REFB. Believe it or not he is trying to be helpful. Bus stop (talk) 03:43, 14 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tanya_Doskova&oldid=1091469865"