Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filiz emma soyak

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 delete. Sandstein 18:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Standard closing disclaimer: If this discussion contained any opinions offered by single purpose accounts or arguments not based on applicable policy, they were discounted in assessing consensus for this decision. Sandstein 18:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Filiz emma soyak

Filiz emma soyak (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Prod removed. Non-notable artist. The "feature" in Boston Globe consists of one quote in a small six paragraph article. Author claims over 400 independent search results, but I found a mere 74 unique hits on google. IrishGuy ^talk 16:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The deletion proposed by user:irishguy demonstrates a failure to properly check the background of artist before determining "notability." Filiz Soyak is a well known arist both regionally (to Boston) and in the wider context of the art world. As I stated in the talk page her art has been presented in various galleries and showings worldwide. If a single patroller is able to use their own loose interpretation of "notability," then it is time that Wikipedians seriously consider defining what notability is. I have included below a few "Contemporary artists" that lack notability in the context of my region or art taste....

Eija-Liisa Ahtila Lacks proof of notability. Cash prize cited for reason artist has contemporary importance. Perhaps we should include lottery winners also.
Fiona Banner Failed to win the Turner Prize. Can she be considered notable then when she failed the "prize test" as used to prove notability of the above artist?
Michael Betancourt Article fails to cite sources or demonstrate notability

--Jackhamm 16:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

First, please read WP:CIV. Second, an article must illustrate verifiable notability. This article doesn't. It fails WP:BIO across the board. IrishGuy ^talk 16:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe I was lacking civility in my response to the AfD tag. I merely indicated that the article was tagged for deletion without a clear demonstration of lack of notability. WP:BIO states that

"Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field"

I am merely asking for proof that the artist in question will not become part of the historical record of contemporary art. There are many other artists in the contemporary category that warrant deletion based on the grounds that this article has been tagged. I don't support the deletion of those articles because in terms of the greater context of comtemporary art, I cannot determine their contribution to the field of art. The paradox at hand is that they are contemporary and thus they haven't left their mark on the field yet. If the reason for AfD of this article passes then I see no way to avoid AfDs on many more contemporary artist entries. This is a dangerous precedent to set. I hope other users will contribute to this debate. --Jackhamm 17:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor do I have to provide proof that this person won't become a part of the historical record. It is the article author's job to provide verifiable proof that the artist currently is a part of the historical record. What could happen in the future is entirely irrelevant. The nomination clearly shows that this isn't notable: the google hits are low (70-some unique hits is not impressive) and there is only one article and the artist wasn't even the primary subject of the article but merely gave a quote. For the record, Wikipedia does have a definition for what notability is: Wikipedia:Notability. IrishGuy ^talk 17:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The notability guidelines (Wikipedia:Notability) are in dispute. However they state "A topic can fail to satisfy the criteria because there are few or no reliable published sources independent of the subject." I fail to see how one is able to make an assessment that "70-some unique hits is not impressive." I've asked for proof that the artist is non-notable. I've been given links to disputed policies and personal interpretations of notability. I've offered links and a passed search engine test. Once again, the Boston Globe article has a multimedia component, that lasts for several minutes and was the result of several hours of video interview. I would point out that the above statement "...there is only one article and the artist wasn't even the primary subject of the article but merely gave a quote" is NOT accurate. Furthermore, the Wikipedia:Notability states:

"Notability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly. With respect to notability, the inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works. Other authors, scholars, and journalists have decided whether to give attention to a topic, and in their expertise have researched and checked the information about it. As such, the primary notability criterion does allow Wikipedia editors to determine whether "the world" has judged a subject to be notable, but this is not a consideration of whether a Wikipedian personally thinks a subject is or is not notable."

The Filiz emma soyak article has demonstrated adherence to the above policy. I intend to add more information later and encourge additional editing by other users, but even with currently only one reference, it still demonstrates that "Other authors, scholars, and journalists have decided whether to give attention to a topic, and in their expertise have researched and checked the information about it." Once again I contend the proposal for deletion is unwarranted.

--Jackhamm 17:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You say: I've asked for proof that the artist is non-notable but it doesn't work that way. Articles must illustrate verifiable notability. This doesn't. One article wherein the artist wasn't the primary subject does not meet WP:BIO which expressely states that the artist must be the subject of multiple non-trival articles. A six paragraph article is fairly trivial, but regardless, Soyak wasn't the primary subject. 70 some hits isn't notable. If this artist had made a large impact in the art world the number of references would be three times that amount. IrishGuy ^talk 17:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

We are going to have to agree to disagree. I've placed this debate on Requests for comment and on Third opinion. I think we should wait this out for more opinions. I intend to dispute the notability requirments based on the discussion we've had. Jackhamm 17:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure if a Third opinion is appropriate here - people tend to donner by AfDs on their own - however I'll give one anyway:

Delete. While lack of notability on its own is not a valid reason for deletion - Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia - everything must be verifiable, and I'm afraid this article is not, though only just; this is the real problem with lesser-known subjects. The artist's own site, being self-published is not a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. The Boston Globe article shows that the artist in question is getting some attention, but it contains very few factual details, being mainly a reflective piece, and certainly not enough to verify the whole article. This isn't to say that this will always be the case, however. If more sources become available, and the article becomes verifiable, this article would become a good addition to Wikipedia. --Scott Wilson 19:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nothing further to add. TheRingess 19:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep there seems to be plenty of supporting documentation. 21:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.61.49.70 (talk • contribs) — 64.61.49.70 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The above user has signed a post with the name of the article author Jackhamm right here. If that is a true signature, this is a duplicate vote by Jackhamm which is sockpuppetry. IrishGuy ^talk 19:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice try. The "above user" is some IP address. I didn't need to vote as I already made my opinion on keeping the article. I have no need to resort to sockpuppetry as I already know I'm outnumbered. My insistance on keeping the article stems purely from the fact that I still believe I worked within the constraints of Wikipedia:Notability. Secondly, I'm not sure how the removal of a vandalism that you linked to demonstrates anything other than the fact that you are obsessing over the fact that I won't agree with you. Also, I'm not quite sure why you think launching a personal vendetta against me because we disagree on notability is necessary, but either way please stop being combative and read WP:CIV Jackhamm 03:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the above is an IP...and IP that signed a post with your username. Pointing that fact out is not being uncivil. Your behavior with this comment, however, is incredibly uncivil. IrishGuy ^talk 16:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No, there doesn't. Fan-1967 21:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom nn Nashville Monkey 23:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Let's delete this one so we can start on my notable article as someone who voted to delete this article? Seriously, let's see some cited sources that prove notability. Alan.ca 06:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

* Well, there is a handy thing at the bottom of the article called the references. You can read them if you want to see some notability. Secondly, and just and FYI for the all the people who have been exceedingly nasty to me since I started my first post here, now I understand why so many people disparage Wikipedia. I can't help but notice that my attempts to explain why I thought this article was worthy of submission was met mostly with rude responses (with the exception of one friendly response) or 'delete' lines without explanation. Enjoy your club. The current way this is being run discredits the wonderful idea behind Wikipedia. Jackhamm 14:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC) (ex-user effective December 5, 2006)

• Please review article talk page, additional comments on it I hope that before you all consider deleting the article that you will look on the articles talk page and notice that other users also find her to be notable. I don't know if at this point the new edits, added references, and other support will be enough to remove the tag, but everyone should consider it anyway. Jackhamm 13:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. WMMartin 17:37, 8 December 2006 (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.