Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanya Doskova

Tanya Doskova

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)

• 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'sPonyo^shhh 21:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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'sPonyo^shhh 15:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• 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.