Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiara Passa

Chiara Passa

(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)[reply]

Delete self-promotional and not notable. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Est omnino difficile iudicare inclusionis meritum cuiusdam rei in encyclopædia cum ratio sciendi quid populi referat incerta sit, sed nihilominus aliquid encyclopædiam dedecet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.34.111.253 (talk) 13:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC) Chiarapassa (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]