Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paola Pivi

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was KEEP. New references added clearly establish notability per WP:ARTIST Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

=[[Paola Pivi]]=

:{{la|Paola Pivi}} – (View AfDView log){{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/reports/afd/{{urlencode:Paola Pivi}}.html|2=Afd statistics}}

:({{Find sources|Paola Pivi}})

{{search for|Paola Pivi}}

This is not an article that can be easily improved by editors. The subject is not necessarily notable. All we have is a pasted in CV from commercial gallery. Artiquities (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep This is not an article that can be easily improved by editors. So, do you think it is better to delete the information? Paola Pivi is a notable and interesting artist and meets our criteria for creative professionals [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/arts/design/31gall.html], [http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10561762], [http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2004/nov/03/art] etc etc. The article is in a bad shape and needs work, as well as cca 3.300.000 articles on this project. However, I can't find any harmful (or commercial) information unacceptable for this encyclopedia - what we have now is rather a list of exhibitions. If you suspect copyright infringement, please could you explain in a more specific way what's wrong? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Vejvančický mentions above that this is "a notable and interesting artist" but this opinion could not have been from ed from WP as there is no evidence of notabilty included. WP is not a place to simply paste a resume. As it stands this article does not meet criteria for notability--i.e, subject mentioned in reliable sources.--Artiquities (talk) 13:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete No evidence of notability at all. Curiously Vejvančický, the only person so far asking for "keep", uses straw man arguments by answering hypothetical reasons for deletion that have not been put forward. Nobody has claimed there is "harmful" or "commercial" information, nor has anyone suggested copyright infringement, so Vejvančický's arguments are irrelevant. As for "a notable and interesting artist", "notable" has not been demonstrated and "interesting" is irrelevant: see WP:ILIKEIT. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I assume you've noted the links in my comment, they're all substantial reviews published by major newspapers in Europe (Guardian), USA (NYTimes) and New Zealand (NZHerald). You could ask me if I plan to use the sources in the article. Instead of it you review my "irrelevant" arguments ... It is strange. I'll work on the article. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Vejvančický has presented plenty of evidence of notability above. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep but needs fixing - reads like a resume, not acceptable as is...Modernist (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment None of the three sources linked above by Vejvančický gives substantial coverage of Paola Pivi. All of them give mentions of her in the course of covering other topics in which she is involved. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - It's not clear what you are looking for if those sources don't meet the signifcant coverage criteria.
  • # [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/arts/design/31gall.html?_r=1] is the New York Times covering an exhibition which she organised, and in which she exhibited. The review touches on both, and to me that is significant coverage. And that's the weakest of the the three sources.
  • # [http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10561762] is a review of one of her works—exclusively. That's significant coverage.
  • # [http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2004/nov/03/art] is a review of another of her works as primary subject of the article. Again, that's significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep with significant coverage that demonstrates the subject meets the guidelines for the general notability guidelines. Also, criterion 4 from WP:CREATIVE is applicable as exhibiting twice at the Venice Biennial shows her work is receiving critical attention. That's not some small gallery somewhere, it is a major arts exhibition. -- Whpq (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

: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.