User talk:Artkritik

Artkritik, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Artkritik! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 20:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Erik Sigerud

Hello, Artkritik. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Erik Sigerud, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Erik Sigerud to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks,

Mduvekot (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Erik Sigerud for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Erik Sigerud is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erik Sigerud until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Theroadislong (talk) 11:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Kristina Jansson

Hi, I'm Jbhunley. Artkritik, thanks for creating Kristina Jansson!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please consider returning to the article to add reliable sources to show she meets the notability criteria for artists

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Jbh ^Talk 17:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Kristina Jansson

Hello Artkritik,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Kristina Jansson for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Jbh ^Talk 17:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

deletions

Hi Artkritik, I've noticed that some of your contribution have been nominated for deletion. I nominated Erik Sigerud myself because it had no references. I think you can avoid those deletions if you gave yourself a bit more time and worked with other editors to bring the articles up to our standards for inclusion before moving them out of Draft space yourself. Your use of Articles for Creation is a bit unusual. I'd offer some lengthy advice or point to a long list of guidelines and essays, but before I do that, let me ask: are you interested discussing how you submit articles? All the best, Mduvekot (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mduvekot: Hi Mduvekot. Thank you for your message. I am new to Wikipedia editing and I would gladley receive help and guidelines. Best regards, Artkritik Artkritik (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Artkritik Great. I noticed that when you started Andreas Eriksson (visual artist) and Kristina Jansson, you use a template that indicates that you would like to use the Articles for Creation process and that you have used the Article wizard to do so. What you do not appear to do however is submit the page for review. Did you have trouble submitting those articles for review, or did you decide to skip the review process?

Articles for Creation is backlogged, so it can take a long time to get someone to review an article and move it to Article space for you. The AfC reviewers will (try to) make sure that an article that they accept meets our criteria for inclusion. For example, an article about a living person must have references. Basically an AfC reviewer publishes an article on your behalf and says "I think the result of a deletion deletion discussion would be Keep". If you skip that step, and move the article yourself, New page reviewers like me, who review new articles as part of New pages patrol will notice that. AfC is optional for registered users who do not have a conflict of interest, but NPP is not. Almost every new article (there are some exceptions) goes through NPP, and New page reviewers will consider a large number of criteria. A review goes something like this: [1]. Do you want to go over some of the issues with the articles and see if we can fix them? Mduvekot (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mduvekot: Thank you for enlightening me on my mistakes. I missed that I was supposed to submit the articles for review. Thank you for informing me on the process. If you have the time, please help me fix my articles. I was planning on publishing a few other articles on Swedish artists and next time I will be more careful to follow the correct procedures.

I made some small changes to Andreas Eriksson (visual artist). I hope they are self-explanatory. The thing that concerned me most was Andreas Eriksson is considered one of Sweden's more eminent artists. That may be true, but unless we know who considers him that, we can't say that, and even then, it's a pretty meaningless statement. Not only that, the cited article does not support that claim in any way. It does say other things that could be used "Focusing on the landscape that surrounds his studio" can be used to support "inspired by the nature around his homestudio". You could paraphrase "Andreas Eriksson monumental paintings hark back to the Sublime in Northern European painting", and "Eriksson also pushes toward abstraction with his overriding concern for pictorial surface." Good luck, Mduvekot (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mduvekot: One of my articles was automatically deleted. Do you know about this. Apparently, this subject had been entered before and deleted, but this is the article I put the most effort in.

Hey Artkritik Yes, I do, assuming you are talking about Erik Sigerud. An article about him has been deleted several times, for various reasons. You can see them all here: [2]. I understand how frustrating it is to find something you have invested a lot of time and energy in deleted. I really hope you don't let this dissuade you from continuing to contribute to Wikipedia. If you have what you believe to be good sources, can you show them to me? I can let you know if I think they are sufficient to sustain an article. Mduvekot (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mduvekot: I see. I saw the deleted pages now. I have found at least three links, one of which is in Swedish:

http://www.imagomundiart.com/artworks/erik-sigerud-public-sphere https://www.eriksigerud.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Skiftande-perspektiv-pa%CC%8A-verkligheten-med-konstna%CC%88ren-Erik-Sigerud.pdf https://issuu.com/articulaction/docs/articulaction_art_review_-_speciial/160

Thanks, the [3] cite is usable. Having work in the collection of a notable person might help as well. [4] is not so great, because it is by Sigerud himself. We do occasionally use primary sources like this but only to verify details, like a birthyear. The pdf you linked to is really confusing, and not because it's in Swedish. The author and photographer appears to be Anders K Gustafsson and the publisher mittmedia, but I can't figure out where this was published and whether Gustafsson is a staff writer. It really matters if the writer is has submitted something as an unpaid "contributor", or if they're employed as a reporter by a newspaper that uses factcheckers. Can you clarify that for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mduvekot (talk • contribs) 23:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mduvekot: I found the article from Mittmedia here https://www.dt.se/logga-in/skiftande-perspektiv-pa-verkligheten-med-konstnaren-erik-sigerud . Unfortunately, the article has a paywall. I also found these: https://www.siljannews.se/kultur/jag-vill-fanga-kanslan-av-att-beskydda-sig-sjalv-och-det-egna https://www.artfacts.net/en/artist/erik-sigerud-373941/profile.html http://www.omkonst.com/12-pa-besok.shtml https://galleripictura.se/2012/03/07/pa-besok-anna-petters-for-all-else-is-dust-and-air-erik-sigerud-handling-och-frihet/ http://galleribox.se/2012/erik-sigerud-olika-rum/

That [5] is behind a paywall does affect its viability as a source. Paywalled content may be used. Artfacts is not bad, but it ranks him quite low. I would normally consider anyone in the top 10,000 but not lower. The rank is a gross simplifcation, but gives a sense of how establisehed a career is. [6] is a strange source. I can read the text, but I find it incomprehensible. I can't think of any statement you could make in the article that the source would support. Something about the power of the media to decide what is relevant versus the intimacy of privacy? Anyway, you'd have to attribute it as opinion to Martin Hägg. [7] is from a source that is direcly connected, so no intellectually independent,, and should only be used to verify some basic biographic details. [8] looks good. [9] on the other hand, doesn't say much that I find usable. I talks about geometric explanation models, abstract life energies, things that I'm pretty don't make a lot of sense to our reader. As for the quotes it contains, you can quote the subject, but I would avoid it as much as possible, and only use them when the article would not make sense without them. Mduvekot (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mduvekot: Thank you very much for your helpful input. I'm not shure if this is the correct way to do it but I'm making a last effort to publish this article by making a draft: Draft:Erik Sigerud . I have followed Sigerud's work for some time and I like it. However, if he is not considered to be famous enough for Wikipedia all will concentrate on publishing article about other artists.

I made a small copy edit to your draft. Hope that's OK. I would note that, even though it is supported by many sources, the biggest problem is going to be this phrase: "Sigerud has exhibited in galleries and museums around Sweden and abroad." I can almost guarantee you that other editors will read that and say; well, so what. That's what artists do, and it does not in any way make him special or remarkable. I would recommend that you are very specific. He's has several solo shows, so point that out. How big a deal is the Konsthall in Rättvik for example? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mduvekot (talk • contribs) 19:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mduvekot: Thank you. The solo shows at Rättviks konsthall have high standards. After Sigerud they will exhibit Maria Friberg and Ylva Ceder. They are both quite famous in Sweden. I had plans on writing something about Maria Friberg later on. I am not sure how to prove the importance of the places where Sigerud has exhibited.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Erik Sigerud has been accepted

Erik Sigerud, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

etothepi 👽 ^(u)•(t) 17:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Erik Sigerud

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Erik Sigerud, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)