Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vaj (street artist)

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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash talk stalk 05:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vaj (street artist)[edit]

Vaj (street artist) (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 notable artist. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. A single act of vandalism is not enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Have a look at WP:BLP1E; clearly relevant. I searched for quite a while (and have just relooked due to your comments), and cannot find any significant coverage in independent secondary sources which is not about this one event. --Jack Frost (talk) 23:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One has to meet all three of the following conditions for BLP1E deletion: Condition 1: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." The sources cover her in the context of her being feminist artist, so condition one fails. They are not solely talking about her paint job on the statue, they talk about her position as a female artist, about the intervention, about feminism etc. Condition 2: "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual" is false, as she is not likely to remain a low-profile individual, given that she is self-avowed a shi*-disturbing artist. BLP1E is meant for low profile individuals who are not typically in the public eye, and are not expected to be. Clause 3: "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." It appears to be very well documented. It does not take much to see that this artist does not meet all three conditions of WP:BLP1E. One could argue that she is close to meeting one or possibly two of them, but not all three, which is the requirement for WP:BLP1E. 104.163.152.90 (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:BLP1E 1) Do reliable sources only cover her in the context of the single event: Yes. Google Books has no results. Google news has only references to her following her painting of the Queen Vic statue; yes there's an interview with her regarding her motivations & reasoning for doing so, but it's still only because she's spray painted a statue. Google web search brings up the same results as the Google news search, her website & twitter, a single mention of a gallery show (which is promo), some blog comments on the statue, and not much else. Highbeam research archive has nothing relevant. I have access to a British newspaper archive, and there's nothing new there either. Finally I ran an academic search for kicks & giggles and found nothing there either. 2) Does she otherwise remain, and is likely to remain a low-profile individual: Debatable. But aside from this one event, there is no coverage whatsoever (aside from that one art show. I view it as WP:CRYSTAL; if she does something else notable, bring the article back, until then, it's a case of single event notability. 3) Is the event significant?: Spray painting a vagina onto a statue of Queen Victoria; you can argue about the reasoning behind it later, but I argue that the event itself is insignificant. It attracted some news coverage, but I wouldn't have thought that the coverage it does have established notability. --Jack Frost (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So now you're going to wander along behind me making snarky comments on every AfD I contribute to? Joy. Although I suppose it provides some encouragement to provide fuller explanations for my reasoning. Though dear, don't let that stop you from finding another hobby... --Jack Frost (talk) 13:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glad to see you have now withdrawn your delete arguments on this artist as well. (formerly 104.163.152.90) 96.127.243.41 (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While most of the media coverage focuses on the one piece of artwork, there has been coverage of this artwork in English, French, Italian, Chinese, Ukrainian and Russian. Further, there has been subsequent discussion after the initial outrage related to the work about the roll of Vaj's work in a broader context, and included pictures of her other less well known works. She has also been the subject of a documentary that has been shown at a film festival. --LauraHale (talk) 12:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per LauraHale and her incredible diff. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Laura's additions leave no futher doubt about this one.--Ipigott (talk) 08:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Whilst I still hold concerns about the single event notability of this article's subject (as per my above comment), I cannot in good faith support deletion of the article in its current state. Phenomenal work by LauraHale. --Jack Frost (talk) 13:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - beautifully salvaged. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. freshacconci talk to me 01:22, 11 March 2017 (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/Vaj_(street_artist)&oldid=1138481283"