Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanya Doskova: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:19, 11 February 2010

Tanya Doskova

(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'sPonyo^shhh 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'sPonyo^shhh 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]

http://www.canada-culture.tv/Studio1/arts-visuels-TanyaDoskova-EN.html
http://www.lqaf.com/artist-galleries/printmaking/tanya-doskova/
http://www.woodlandsartsfestival.com
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0234404/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.219.57 (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.... Just imagine that you are judging my body of work and write an article about it...... and you will be the missing link...the artist Tanya Doskova

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