Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BerriBlue (2nd nomination)

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. Spartaz Humbug! 04:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BerriBlue

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

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

BerriBlue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was deleted three months ago and recreated by the same COI editor (see the first AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BerriBlue). While I fully support notable women artists for inclusion in the encyclopedia, it is still WP:TOOSOON for this artist, as there has not been significant improvement to the article, or to her career accomplishments since it was deleted. She does not meet WP:NARTIST and I'm still not convinced that the sourcing meets our general notability criteria. She has had a few shows but that's what artists do WP:MILL, however none have been at notable venues, there are no museum collections, no significant exhibitions, etc.). In good faith, I'm bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I'll try to address this to Netherzone's comments above as well as some of the previous reasons for deletion in the first version (though this version is significantly different). I am kind of annoyed to be back here because after the last deletion, I was very careful and took my time to redo the article before submitting.
If there are any suggested changes to make, I'm happy to make further edits.
Extended commentary
Deleted and then recreated by COI author
  • The original COI was due to it being my only article (I only had another draft), and then because my name is similar to the subject's husband's name, and tbh I didn't want to get into all that. I will say that Will is a very common name. Go figure.
  • In the course of trying to find better sources during the last deletion discussion, I directly contacted the artist by email. I was informed that this was a COI in itself. Annoying, but fair enough so I declared it clearly in the talk page, as recommended.
  • When re-writing the article, I tried to be extremely careful with he impartiality of the article's tone, to counter the potential for COI.
  • I removed all references relating to the subject's fashion design as that could be considered promotion of an existing small business and so would be spam / promotional.
  • Most importantly, I've been advised that it's not deletable just to have a COI, that's why we have the protocol for declaring it.


WP:Artist
This article is about a street artist, not a gallery artist.
  • The criteria of having work in museums and international exhibitions etc etc don't really apply to a street artist. Their work tends to be temporary, unofficial, illegal, and does not often end up in museums.
  • Moreover, street artists have a particular local cultural significance. Their work is part of the public-domain culture of a city and can't be measured simply by commercial success.
  • This touches on WP:MILL also, since yes - having a few exhibitions is run of the mill, but a street artist working in azulejos and very large murals in the city centres of major cities (In this case Lisbon and Porto) has an impact that goes beyond a mid level gallery artist.
  • This also pertains to the issue of significant awards - street artists don't tend to get these.


Citations
There are plenty of references, but I tried to go for quality over quantity.
  • The most important references to look at, I think, are the inclusion in a book on Irish street artists, and the mention in an academic book on the Irish abortion rights campaign.
  • The reason I point to that reference in particular is that it is notable to an academic work which is not about art or street art, implying cultural significance.
  • Among the other references, there are national newspapers - Jornal de Noticias & Publico - and a feature on a very large regional TV station - Porto Canal.


Notability
Again, I tried to go with good, reputable sources. It was a bit of a struggle to express the significance over here locally.
  • In Porto, Portugal's second city, this artist's work is a very common familiar sight and part of the cultural fabric of the city. for example, she was an answer on Who Wants to be a Millionaire a while back (I'll try to dig that up)
  • I included the exhibition in DESA as one of the main sources - for those not in the know, DESA is not a small auction house. It's the biggest and most prestigious Polish auction house. Being included in the street art exhibition and auction I would consider fairly notable.
  • For some nice examples of some absurd obscure things that are considered fine, I recommend checking Depths of Wikipedia.


Why do I care?
I thought I'd address this since I've added a novel here, and it came up during the last discussion. Some people seemed to think that my getting annoyed or putting up a defence of the article constituted proof of treachery and deep COI, etc etc.
  • In actual fact I'm really annoyed because I spent a lot of time carefully rewriting this article in as impartial a manner as possible, with the best citations I could find.
  • It was then accepted, with the caveat that it's borderline, but would be suited to growth and incubation in the main space.
  • I'm also really annoyed over the whole idea of street artists being held to standards that simply don't apply. I'm really interested in street art, and I'd like to write more articles about similar artists.


Finishing off my massive rant
  • @Netherzone: I'll try not to take it personally. I get that you have a different point of view. I would suggest that recommendations for improvement are a more suitable action than another deletion nomination.
Thanks for the heads up. Going to decline to participate for the reasons above, mainly a lack of time/interest in the subject to research an informed !vote. Happy with wherever the community lands on this Star Mississippi 01:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Wil57 - you forgot to ping other members of the community who contributed to the first AfD: @Vexations:, @JakubDeWisniewski:, @WomenArtistUpdates:, @Scopecreep:, @Onel5969:, @Spleodrach: - important otherwise it might be perceived as not neutral as only the K**p !voters were pinged see WP:CANVAS. Please understand nothing here is personal, including AfDs; we go by guidelines that were created through community consensus. I totally get it that it can be frustrating when "our" work is deleted or changed, we have all experienced that in some way, shape or form. I'm very sorry for your frustration. Netherzone (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Netherzone:, Fair enough - I did only ping those who agreed with me. Just read the deletion guidelines and it is very clear so sorry about that.
    Since we're getting the old gang back together, there are a couple of things I'd like to mention:
    • I'm not getting into a debate on my identity - I found that really aggravating to put it mildly. I've disclosed COI (because of being in contact through email, which gave me one new citation) so let's leave it at that please.
    • I think the argument about this belonging on the Polish or Portuguese wiki, not the EN one is really moot and quite offensive. I live in Portugal but I'm British; the subject of the article is Polish/Irish/living in Portugal for a long time. Let's be cosmopolitan about this.
    • I have a full time job, so won't have time to respond extensively like this every time, so please don't make any snap decisions. I think there's a conversation worth having here, and the last discussion ended fairly suddenly, without giving me time to respond to some fairly outright accusations. Wil57 (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wil57 thank you for clarification, of course you do not have to identify yourself. As to the COI how about we put that to rest? AfD is a process in which the community weighs in on notability in relation to the established wikipedia guidelines and policies. I did not say anything about other Wikipedias such as Poland or Portugal, that was another editor in the first AfD. Just so you know where I'm coming from, I too have a full time job as do most of us volunteers; I work on a lot of articles here on women artists. AfDs generally last 7 days, and are closed by an uninvolved administrator who evaluates the !votes (not a vote) based on policy. It is not my decision to make whether or not the article is kept, it's the community's decision. BTW, Street artists do have museum shows, projects, and get collected/commissioned by museums, and WP has many articles on them. But in this case I do think it is still TOOSOON. The community of editors here may or may not agree with that - that's how consensus works here. The process unfolds naturally on its own. There are some links at the top of this page that will give you more info on how AfD works. My suggestion is to read those, continue to try to improve the article if more verifiable secondary sources can be found (tho I do understand from your note that you are busy.) Netherzone (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and SALT this time, no notability at all. Spleodrach (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How is there no notability?
    Again, work appearing in books, mentioned in academic texts, multiple articles in national newspapers, participation in exhibitions & auction internationally Wil57 (talk) 09:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have nothing to add other than my original comments as of the AfC acceptance, which is that I saw 3-4 sources in the citations which were primarily about her. I generally do not !vote in discussion to do with my AfC reviews, since I consider myself to have said my piece, but Wil57, I'm sorry you're being jerked back and forth like this. Rusalkii (talk) 00:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've gone digging and added a couple more citations - articles in national newspaper and magazine - plus fixed one broken link in an earlier citaiton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wil57 (talk • contribs) 10:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    regardless of your hesitation to disclose COI, you noted on the Talk that you would not edit it directly. Please use edit requests as you are connected per your own note above. If you don't, you risk being blocked from the article Star Mississippi 13:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BerriBlue's bio after 3 months comes back again..Did any ground breaking changes occured to her career in this short period? NO. There is no point improving the article, when the subject is not notable. As I said before, Desa Auction is nothing prestigious, an event without curatorial overview. After three months the bio is still TOO SOON, and we cannot make an expection for her lack of signigicant exhibition history /scholarly articles /collections/ awards. They do exist in the realm of street art, and she has not received such an honors so far. Please come back again, if/ when it happens.--JakubDeWisniewski (talk) 12:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've received the ping, but I have an aversion to the subject's work that prevents me from rendering an objective assessment of the quality of the sourcing and the notability of the subject. 14:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment@JakubDeWisniewski:The changes were made to the article, rather than the subject. The first article was poorly referenced, the images weren't uploaded correctly (no permissions).
The changes over the past 3 months were me starting again and trying to create a much more impartial, better cited article, which I cautiously submitted, asking for plenty of advice along the way. It was then accepted, and a couple of weeks later I have the same arguments coming back again. If it was accepted after all the changes I made, it should stay.
@Star Mississippi: You're right about the edit requests - apologies. I hope you guys can understand my adding a couple more citations since that's one of the things people are mentioning is missing (again) and I'm really frustrated about all this (again)
Basically, if this one still can't be accepted then my other article (Hazul and ones I hoped to write (about street artists I'm interested in from my city and beyond) are all unacceptable, and I may as well just quit. The first deletion process was obviously frustrating, but also informative and I thought it helped me to be a better contributor. This one just feels personal.
Again - many mentions and dedicated articles in national news sources & magazines, working in an unusual medium, appearances on TV, work widely recognised in Lisboa and Porto, included in anthology off main Irish street artists, cultural impact of work mentioned in academic text.
Do what you want, I'm out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wil57 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you're frustrated, but you have some basic misconceptions about how Wikipedia works including If it was accepted after all the changes I made, it should stay. One editor's opinion does not negate/overrule others, which is why @Netherzone brought it here for discussion. This is also a challenge when you're connected to the subject. You have a more vested interest than I do in say Bonnie Milligan, taking my most recent article. If someone feels she isn't notable, I would disagree and might vote as such depending on the nom, but it's not "frustrating" because it's not personal. Star Mississippi 17:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No, Will57. It was not "accepted" in this sense. Most of the editors agreed that your subject is failing notability.(per first AFD) then you made cosmetic changes, promptly resubmitted, but her notability is still lackimg. Yes, someone accepted your AFC submission, but this doesn't represent consesus of the wikipedians. What we have is a COI editor trying to convince us (again) that his subject is "notable" in his opinion..yet there is no evidence whowing significant exhibitions, collections, residencies, awards to show::*@Netherzone: JakubDeWisniewski (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NARTIST. Reiterating my vote from February. The subject has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The author has declared their COI, yet continues to edit this one article. No attempt has been made by the author to understand the guidelines of Wikipedia. The photo of the subject is nominated for deletion and the other photos of artwork has the author of the article claiming the work as their own, which would mean the author is the painter and the photographer. The editor on one hand is passionate about keeping this particular article, yet maintains they don't have time to become part of the Wikipedia community. One article about one dead Portuguese artist would show some good faith that they are doing more than promoting one living artist's work. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not a vote, since I'm not familiar with how WP:NARTIST gets applied in practice, but from just looking around at similar pages and topics, I'd rather see an article on Street art in Porto, Portugal (similar to Street art in Ponce, Puerto Rico or Street art in Sarajevo) than this article on an artist who seems to have, at best, arguable notability. The author says things in the discussion like "well, in Porto..." and wrote another page on a different street artist in Porto, Hazul, and so seems knowlegable about street art in Porto. I'd love to see that article, which would be informative, more than this one, that seems like it's trying create notability a little more than demonstrate it. Then there could be a discussion of Hazul and BerriBlu, along with relevant history and context of the area. The writer is frustrated that they spent a lot of time on this, but I would offer my encouragement that it doesn't have to be that hard. Try creating stubs of obviously notable people, that other people will then join in and edit with you. Wikipedia at its best, in my experience, is collaborative, not a place for me to show off my knowledge or research. And I've had pages deleted and edits undone, and it's not the end of the world. Just my two cents. Engelhardt (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent suggestions! Netherzone (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2022 (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/BerriBlue_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1087226006"