Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiara Passa

Chiara Passa

Chiara Passa (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)

CSD tag removed. Article is an autobiography, contrary to our policies on the use of Wikipedia for promotion. Subject does not meet notability criteria. Citobun (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.

• Delete self-promotional and not notable. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Note page has previously been deleted. Was subsequently recreated with the exact same material. Why Chrislk02 felt it didn't qualify for WP:CSD is questionable. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. The page in question is not an article, but a resume or list of accomplishments written by the named person, who doesn't understand why it is problematic for someone to write their own article, especially in a promotional nature. I also don't understand why Chrislk02 removed the tag. 331dot (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• NOTE First of all, WP:AUTO is not a policy, it is a content guideline, which, as it says "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". The article was written better than many other articles written by external authors, and in terms of self promotion, it is no where near as blatant as many other articles. Additionally, the artists resume indicated that there was likely notability, being an internationally exhibited artist. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 21:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • additional note I was unaware of a previous deletion. I agree, it was written in a self promotional manner, but looking at the references, I felt it at least merited a discussion (I tend to err on the side of caution in these situations). Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 21:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure it is possible to successfully write an autobiography on Wikipedia, but I don't think this is an example of that. I do thank you for and appreciate your reply. 331dot (talk) 23:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello Zackmann08 have you read carefully the references? I was using the artist template https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_artist as many other artist i cited in my talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chiara_Passa If you see also this example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Arcangel you'll see an autobiographical page, reporting even personal stuff, that i've avoided talking only on MEDIA ART!

• NOTE 2 keep

Chrislk02 On the previous delation... well, 3 days ago i just started to write the page - few lines - and someone delete the page while i was writing... I was not having the time to adjust online, etc. This is why i decided to edit the 'artist template' to fill offline, then paste into wiki and adjust there links, references, stuff etc. Please have a look at my talk page where i report article of some other media artist like me. There are example much more 'autobiographical' than mine. Like Chrislk02 says WP:AUTO is not a policy, it is a content guideline that i try to respect and report on the page i was writing.Chiarapassa (talk) 09:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC) Best, Chiara

Each page is judged on its own merits; the fact that others in your line of work have pages is irrelevant. This has not been suggested for deletion solely because it is autobiographical(problematic as that is; it would have been better to draft it for review at WP:AFC first), it has been suggested because it is promotional and does not clearly indicate how you are notable. It is correct that autobiographies are not prohibited, but they are discouraged, and with good reason. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

If you have evidence that other pages of those in your line of work are autobiographical, feel free to bring that up on those pages- though, in my opinion at least, that's not the primary issue here. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi 331dot So, to be honest you'd judge also the following pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marisa_Olson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olia_Lialina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Mandiberg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_and_Franco_Mattes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergio_Maltagliati https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randall_Packer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_Monico and many others...that i wont cite here, I wont raise a polemic, is not my intention. But you'd know, I was inspired by their pages following the artist template and paying attention to the WP:AUTO — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiarapassa (talk • contribs) 09:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC) Chiarapassa (talk) 09:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm just giving my opinion on the page in front of me, and not every page about others in your line of work. As this indicates that is a poor argument to keep a page; we are just talking about the merits of this page. I might be persuaded to change my mind if it was made much less promotional than it is now. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

so, 331dot what do you mean as self-promotional? Can you please help me to change parts of the text you see promotional? Because i haven't alluded to any promotion of 'me', just talked of some artworks (most salient) i made during 19 years (almost 20) of working interantionally in media art. Have you seen the references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiarapassa (talk • contribs) 09:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC) Chiarapassa (talk) 09:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I regret that my time at this moment to discuss this is limited- but simply listing your work and accomplishments without prose about its context and how you are notable is nothing but a resume or personal webpage for you to discuss yourself, which is not what Wikipedia is about. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

i understood that is a deontological matter and a contradiction too! So, i have to do like others colleagues i've cited. Some of them asked to others to write their pages but others write themselves the pages...Chiarapassa (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep keep she is really a pioneer in media art. And she was contributing with talks, lectures, student workshops, exhibiting more worldwide than in Italy especially in electronic art festivals and institutions. The problem here is not that the article is autobiographical - it is very well written, more than many similar other I saw - but the issue here is that she was the own writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.164.134.77 (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC) — 94.164.134.77 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Note: Striking comment by WP:SPA with zero other edits. Definite WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment, have added women artists project to article talkpage so project participants are notified of this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
• chiara passa is a significant artist in the digital art field and is worthy of a wikipedia entry. in particular i know her as the curator of "the widget art gallery", which has been an ongoing project for some years, well before there was anything else like this around. passa has pioneered this format, and through this project continues to support and promote many other digital artists, and deliver accessible digital art to audiences all over the world. she has made a significant contribution to the field of digital art with this project, even without considering her other work. would a solution be to have the page re-written or edited by someone else? Frock (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

If you want to rewrite the page, feel free. Autobiographies are permissible, if highly discouraged, so that's not the primary issue; the issue is that the article reads as a resume or list of accomplishments by this person. If you can rewrite it in an more encyclopedic tone, I would be interested in seeing the result. 331dot (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

NOTE If you want me to move this to the user space/draft space for work, just let me know. On the surface, while there are many problems with the article, I suspect if remedied would pass notability requirements. Just shoot me an email or leave me a note on my talk page. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 02:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• keep for sure! I am a time based art curator, I'd like to take part to the discussion even if i don't have a wikipedia account, and preferring to remain anonymous.

She is an international multi media artist working since the beginnings, well notable in the field of new media art and in truth, she is also an educator teaching since 1997 at university media art aesthetics.

I was reading on the contradiction on 'autobiographical' and the article she wrote on herself that is an autobiography but sincerely, it appear as an art autobiography must be, being not self-promotional as someone argue. She has done much more than you can see here and she wasn't reported in the wiki article, of course. I guess she try to write the main steps of her artistic research as simple as possible. She also was called from ZKM (media art museum) to take part to the international jury for "App Art Award" http://on1.zkm.de/zkm/stories/storyReader$8923 (a team of experts in art and app-artworks, so rare!) because she is one of the first artist in making art-applications for mobiles, since AppStore exists. https://the3inchcanvas.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/art-application-create-a-sculpture-on-your-phone/

In the early 95 artists starting in computer art were really fascinated by the computer as medium to make art because was a new way to interprets art. In this field she was one of first starting working, specially in Europe where computer art has remained for long time a sort of sub-cultural art practise, borderline to the art system.

Reading WP:AUTO I guess Passa's page and comparing Passa's article - i was wondering if also wiki reviewers have compared too - with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorna_Mills https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Mandiberg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_and_Franco_Mattes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marisa_Olson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olia_Lialina I noticed that often, all the cited artists have the same references because they took part at the same exhibitions of media art etc worldwide. So, which is the difference between the biography of chiara pssa and the others artists' biographies cited here ?

Just a numerical matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.253.190.114 (talk) 09:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC) — 84.253.190.114 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I'm wondering if the above post is much like the other IP post above that was struck. Very similar in style and language to the person whose article we are discussing. 331dot (talk) 12:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: Striking comment by WP:SPA with zero other edits. Definite WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT.--Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete, and I'm here because of a polite private email asking me to help save the article (which on the English Wikipedia is called WP:CANVASSING). Unfortunately the article is mostly sourced to 'stuff on the internet', rather than magazine/news/book reviews or other reliable independent sources. I've searched online and found this long interview, which shows Chiara Passa is beginning to get noticed, but nowhere near enough to pass the English Wikipedia WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE yet. Maybe there are news articles in Italian that we don't know about, but until reliable sources can be found, the article should not be re-created. Sionk (talk) 16:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• NOTE Yes, i was writing to Sionk because i thought to involve someone else with an art background, even if now I've understood in not specifically media art. I din’t knew that this action is prohibited in wikipedia. I am sorry Sionk but I disagree with what you say. In fact, If you have seen my references you found many pdf regarding offline interational magazines as LEA Leonardo Electronic Almanac, isuuu etc. and many other publications with proceedings (see my bibliography and the conferences http://www.chiarapassa.it/Artisticprofile.html scrolling down the page). You can't search on google only Chiara Passa... for exmple https://rhizome.org/editorial/2012/oct/29/gallery-your-pocket/ this is also a magazine. See the references, Venice biennale book isbn, quadriennale catalogue http://www.quadriennalediroma.org/arbiq_web/index.php?sezione=quadriennali&id=33&ricerca= and many many other...

Moreover, You say that 'the article is mostly sourced to 'stuff on the internet', well i am a media artist and i thought to link more ONLINE STUFF! Chiarapassa (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• Note: For any admins, the only keep votes up to this point are the page creator and their WP:SOCK/WP:MEAT. User has been engaged in widespread WP:CANVASSING to make sure the page is kept. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

NOTE for Zackmann08 now i've understood what is WP:CANVASSING but wasen't widespread, 'cause i've contacted only 5 users that i choose because seemed to me have been written on art, in fact i took their email from the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_artists#Members page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiarapassa (talk • contribs) 20:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Chiarapassa (talk) 20:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

You are still canvassing, which is a problem because you are asking people to come here to save the article(according to one person you emailed). It's one thing to ask people at the WikiProject to visit this page to offer their opinion, but it is different to ask them to give a certain opinion. Please stop canvassing and allow the discussion to take place on its own merits. 331dot (talk) 02:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• Note to 331dot Sorry but not true... i am still not canvassing! As you can see - and you can - i was contacting only 5 users that seemed to me near to the field of art to ask them to join the page and leave their opinion. Then, i haven't contacted anyone else to ask opinion- as you can see.Chiarapassa (talk) 06:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete, for two reasons. (1) Notability. I have looked at the references, and they do not come near to indicating notability in terms of Wikipedia's guidelines. It is in the nature of artists that they seek publicity, as the whole point is to get their art seen and bought. Therefore, artists tend to have coverage in webs sites and other organisations that exist for the purpose of publicising art and artists. Likewise, an artist will be covered on the webs sites of galleries where they have exhibited, on the webs sites of artists' organisations, and of other organisations which have an involvement with the artist in question and their work. That gives widespread coverage, but not coverage in independent sources, and since any artist who wishes to be successful is likely to put work into obtaining such coverage, it is no evidence of notability. In this article, many of the references are of precisely that kind. Also, some of the references barely mention Chiara Passa (such as just including her name in a long list of names) or even don't mention her at all. Then there's a wordpress page announcing an iPhone app that Chiara Passa has "released" (whatever that means), and that is neither an independent source nor a reliable one. Nowhere is there the sort of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources that is required by Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (2) Promotion. There is no way of seeing this as a neutral article. From start to finish it is clearly written to impress us with how significant, innovative, and creative Chiara Passa is. I agree with Chrislk02 that the article is not blatantly promotional enough for speedy deletion, but it still far too promotional to be an acceptable Wikipedia article, and that can be added to the lack of evidence of notability.

It is clear that this is an attempt by Chiara Passa to use Wikipedia to get publicity for her work. I do not in any way blame her for doing so, as anyone without experience of editing Wikipedia is unlikely to have any reason for thinking that posting about oneself to publicise one's work is not acceptable, and as I have already said, artists need to seek publicity if they are to survive. However, I'm afraid that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Chiara, I wish you every success in getting publicity for your work, but Wikipedia is not the place to do it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• NOTE Hi JamesBWatson how do you came here? wondering if someone has asked you to come here… Anyway, thank you for your comment, bust in my opinion, you haven’t analyzed very well and wide-range the situation. If you’ve really seen my references you noticed that are the same of the artists’ articles i’ve cited above in this discussion, because we took part at the same exhibitions and media art stuff. And the way i wrote the art-article is the same of many others cited art-articles written by anonymous or pseudo-external authors I was inspired; but all of you (except Chrislk02 that understood) continue ignoring this point.

If you suggest to delete the article i can’t do nothing to change your point of view, I know that. I am discovering helped by my sister (a lawyer) that Wikipedia with all its laws it is not so ‘democratic’ and highly discourages people writing articles in restricted fields, like for ex. in mine which is media art.Chiarapassa (talk) 12:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC) NOTE 2 for JamesBWatson, just to let you know that i don't work with any commercial gallery. Furtherfield gallery is a no-profit art-space since 1996, since net-art exists, and if you've seen the references, i attend media art conferences, festivals, institutions and museums but not commercial you've to know taht net art is difficult to sale ;) but is it a grat part of contemporary artChiarapassa (talk) 12:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)