Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alla Goniodsky

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Alla Goniodsky}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alla_Goniodsky Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Alla Goniodsky}})

Unclear the significance of stage designer and puppet maker.--Заслуженный шашист (talk) 08:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 September 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Delete a search in the English press turns up next to nothing.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per {{u|ThatMontrealIP}}. The sources provided are not on the significantly covering the subject. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Her name is also spelled Ella Goniodsky in English-language sources. It would be useful to know the Russian language spelling, as she worked in Russia for some time, and the article says that her artworks are in the permanent collections of two museums there, so she may meet WP:ARTIST#4. I'll see what else I can find. RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

::I'm happy to change my !vote if the collections can be confirmed, although tend to think being in a children's museum is not what NARTIST means. Also interesting, when I google the alternate name I come up with some family names that are part to the username that created the article. I guess it would not be surprising if COI were involved here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

:::{{u|ThatMontrealIP}}, per the attribution of the image My_Monster_Made_Of_Sighs.jpg: "I created it in my studio ", the author of the article, is the subject. The article is an autobiography. Vexations (talk) 02:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

::::Thanks. It seems like it might also be a family effort. But-- same problems.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. The fact that someone works and is actually an artist does not mean that they are notable. Even assuming that all this self-written biographical stuff is true, she has never done anything of particular note. She received a design award from Seattle Times critics, but this is not like winning a Tony award or an Olivier award. And the fact that someone's art has been displayed in a museum does not make one notable, unless the work has received particular notice. I don't think she's even close to notable under any of our sets of criteria. Thank you, Rebecca, for taking a look, but in this case, your research leads to the conclusion that this person is not notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• {{tq|And the fact that someone's art has been displayed in a museum does not make one notable, unless the work has received particular notice}} I don't think that's quire right. Consider the effort and cost that goes into a museum exhibition and compare that to the requirements of the GNG (basically, two articles in a RS). A museum exhibition can take a professional curator months to prepare and involves a significant number of staff, and often the creation of a catalogue. That means that a professional with relevant domain expertise has come to the conclusion that a subject is somehow worthy of note. We don't make such decisions ourselves, but defer to precisely such experts, who are not all news journalists or art critics. So, I do think that sometimes "the fact that someone's art has been displayed in a museum" does make one notable. This should all be evaluated in context of course. A single work in a group show in a minor museum is not sufficient to establish notability. However, the categorical rejection of museum exhibits as indicators for notability goes to far and contradicts our guidelines at WP:ARTIST, specifically 4(b). In this particular case, I don't see that the work of the subject has been "a substantial part of a significant exhibition". Vexations (talk) 02:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. Having her work in a museum certainly is a point in her favor, but as Vexations points out it's a minor museum, so it doesn't really meet the criteria at WP:NARTIST. Her work was only tangentially covered in the reviews in the United States. Also fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

{{clear}}

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.