Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Aguilar: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 21:03, 10 April 2016

Laura Aguilar

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:Artist, does not seem to meet guidelines for notability.

There is only one source (an essay by Daniel Perez, who seems to have been a grad student at Claremont and who has only published this one paper, which is about several people and only been cited once) that is substantive criticism of her work.

There is no evidence she has l originated a new technique or theory.

No single work of hers seems to have been the subject of enough discussion to warrant her inclusion.

The article reflects that her work is in several public collections, though it doesn't say permanent collection, and I don't think that the galleries themselves are notable enough.

If this article isn't going to be deleted, it needs rewriting to reflect broader criticism, and it needs to read less like the biography I would read in a brochure for an exhibit. The article is currently the subject of some minor vandalism as she seems to have come up for discussion on the internet. Smith(talk) 19:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC) Smith(talk) 22:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm not sure how the proposer can say there is only one source when there are (and were at the time of proposing) 14 references. One of these regards a retrospective as part of the upcoming Pacific Standard Time LA/LA shows; not only is this a very prestigious series, but a museum retrospective is considered the highest possible achievement in the contemporary art world. So that alone would be per WP:Artist 4(b). Aguilar is also a 2000 recipient of the Anonymous Was a Woman Award, another prestigous marker — admittedly this isn't yet in her page, but I noticed her name on the award page and am mentioning it here because it supports a keep argument. The references as a whole appear solid to me. Page should be tagged for improvement, not deletion.Alafarge (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Aguilar's work is in the permanent collection of several major museums. Mduvekot (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Aguilar may or may not satisfy WP:ARTIST, but she certainly appears to satisfy WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if not Speedy Delete based on Criterion A7 To begin, this article sounds like an advertisement and there is nothing to indicate special notability beyond being an esoteric artist. It is written with a very biased outlook that seems to be trying to justify the article's notability by attempting to answer each criterion separately as the article is divided. It was either written by the author or a shill, because it says nothing of any negative criticism but gushes praise. It clearly falls short of the criteria for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons I suppose I'll begin this autopsy but looking at sources. To begin, 1, 2, 4, 10, and 13 have dead links that go only to error pages. 3, 5, 6, and 7 are mentions, no longer than one or two lines, and provide very little genuine information and are instead essentially trivial mentions. 14, 15 and 16 are simply lists of works in certain collections, but provide no biographical or artistic connections. Now we reach 11, which was written in first person by the artist and is thus only useful for quotations; it is obviously not a reliable third-party source. 12 is an article written by a student in a journal for CGU that no longer exists. It was not written by any authority on the topic, and even then only covers Aguilar's connection to a subject, not an entire paper on her; in fact, the journal itself states: "The goal of LUX is to provide a venue where scholars of different fields can highlight their unique findings for the very first time. Stemmed from eligible submissions to the yearly student research conference hosted by Claremont Graduate University, our journal provides an engaging forum where scholarly exchange is encouraged." That is not a well regarded scholarly journal entry by an authority on the subject or even vetted by authorities on the subject. The citation for AlmaLopez.com has a tiny unsourced entry, unavailable without a direct link, written by someone with a personal interest, but no authority (a college junior Spanish major whose "interest in LGBT was sparked by curiosity" and plans to attend med school). Furthermore, while Lopez is highly regarded, she only seems to mention Aguilar because their works both cover Latina and Lesbian ideas. It is not an article introducing the next prodigy or underrated lifetime achiever. Lopez, Cheryl Dunye, and Annie Liebovitz are people who are relevant enough for articles on very similar subjects, because they pass Wikipedia notability standards and the citation/verifiability standards for a biographical entry. If I were to erase unsourced material, this article would be a couple of sentences long. I am rather dismayed that only the OP seems to have read Wikipedia's definitions of their standards (just because you think it is significant, reliable, and encyclopedic doesn't make it so) or verified any of the citations. I encourage those who decide to respond to this deletion request to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability before doing so. If you are pro- or anti- Reddit article on Aguilar and here to conduct your cyber warfare between one another, please take your fight back to Reddit. TwoSpear 21:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 There is only one source (an essay by Daniel Perez, who seems to have been a grad student at Claremont and who has only published this one paper, which is about several people and only been cited once) that is substantive criticism of her work.
-There is no evidence she has originated a new technique or theory.
+There is no evidence she has l originated a new technique or theory.
 No single work of hers seems to have been the subject of enough discussion to warrant her inclusion.
@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 *'''Speedy Keep''' Aguilar's work is in the permanent collection of several major museums. [[User:Mduvekot|Mduvekot]] ([[User talk:Mduvekot|talk]]) 16:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * '''Speedy keep''' Aguilar may or may not satisfy [[WP:ARTIST]], but she certainly appears to satisfy [[WP:GNG]]. —&nbsp;[[User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Malik Shabazz|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|Stalk]]</sub> 17:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
+*'''Delete, if not Speedy Delete based on Criterion A7''' To begin, this article sounds like an advertisement and there is nothing to indicate special notability beyond being an esoteric artist. It is written with a very biased outlook that seems to be trying to justify the article's notability by attempting to answer each criterion separately as the article is divided. It was either written by the author or a shill, because it says nothing of any negative criticism but gushes praise. It clearly falls short of the criteria for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons I suppose I'll begin this autopsy but looking at sources. To begin, 1, 2, 4, 10, and 13 have dead links that go only to error pages. 3, 5, 6, and 7 are mentions, no longer than one or two lines, and provide very little genuine information and are instead essentially trivial mentions. 14, 15 and 16 are simply lists of works in certain collections, but provide no biographical or artistic connections. Now we reach 11, which was written in first person by the artist and is thus only useful for quotations; it is obviously not a reliable third-party source. 12 is an article written by a student in a journal for CGU that no longer exists. It was not written by any authority on the topic, and even then only covers Aguilar's connection to a subject, not an entire paper on her; in fact, the journal itself states: "The goal of LUX is to provide a venue where scholars of different fields can highlight their unique findings for the very first time. Stemmed from eligible submissions to the yearly student research conference hosted by Claremont Graduate University, our journal provides an engaging forum where scholarly exchange is encouraged." That is not a well regarded scholarly journal entry by an authority on the subject or even vetted by authorities on the subject. The citation for AlmaLopez.com has a tiny unsourced entry, unavailable without a direct link, written by someone with a personal interest, but no authority (a college junior Spanish major whose "interest in LGBT was sparked by curiosity" and plans to attend med school). Furthermore, while Lopez is highly regarded, she only seems to mention Aguilar because their works both cover Latina and Lesbian ideas. It is not an article introducing the next prodigy or underrated lifetime achiever. Lopez, Cheryl Dunye, and Annie Liebovitz are people who are relevant enough for articles on very similar subjects, because they pass Wikipedia notability standards and the citation/verifiability standards for a biographical entry. If I were to erase unsourced material, this article would be a couple of sentences long. I am rather dismayed that only the OP seems to have read Wikipedia's definitions of their standards (just because you think it is significant, reliable, and encyclopedic doesn't make it so) or verified any of the citations. I encourage those who decide to respond to this deletion request to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability before doing so. If you are pro- or anti- Reddit article on Aguilar and here to conduct your cyber warfare between one another, please take your fight back to Reddit. TwoSpear 21:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)