Wikipedia talk:Notability (artists) (failed proposal)

Discussion held at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) Feb 14 - 20, 2007

After some recent discussions at WP:AFD, and my growing participation in AFDing articles (thanks to the User:AlexNewArtBot), I am finding that we have a lot of artist-related articles, and no specific notability guidelines to deal with them. While the general notability rules for people are useful, I think we need something more specific to prevent - as one of the commentators on AFD put it - turning Wikipedia into an artist webdirectory. Personally I have the biggest problems with (modern, young) painters who (or whose fans) claim that they notable sinse they sold some paintings, had them displayed in exhibitions, auctions and/or online galleries, thus is Wikipedia:Notability (artists) sounds too challenging, I'd be happy to settle for Wikipedia:Notabilty (painters). Some related policies to consider: Wikipedia:Notability (music) (for musicians), Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) (umm, why don't we have Wikipedia:Notability (actors)]]?). Some examples of (not?) notable painters I am dealing with: Catherine Karina Chmiel (currently on afd), Magdalena Trzebiatowska (I am considering afd this one). Those are only a tip of an iceberg in Polish painters category, and we probably have hundreds of articles like this Wiki-wide.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in total agreement. I've been involved with a few AfD situations for the same reasons. I think it should be Wikipedia:Notability (artists) rather than specifically painters. I think some sort of international profile, references in major art publications and some bieniale exposure should be considered (although I do realize this may leave out those national artists who are significant in their own country, but not so well known internationally--and I don't have an answer for that at the moment). But a discussion should begin. Freshacconci 23:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A national (non-English) reliable independent profile/references should be enough, I believe (by the same logic WP:RS allows non-English references).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 02:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree. Special rules for inclusion are always redundant to the primary notability criterion of having significant verifiable source material. Without those you can't write an article without failing the verifiability guidelines. See WP:CREEP, which discusses the dangers of too many rules. Most of the rule bloat mentioned above is creating more harm than good. BIO is among the worst. --Kevin Murray 23:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kevin Murray. If people try to direct the discussion toward sales or anything else, keep asking "Do significant secondary sources exist?" If the answer is no, the person's non-notable, whatever they may have sold or anything else. I really don't see how this is anything but WP:CREEP. Incidentally, I'd say the same thing of WP:PORNBIO, and would be very close to saying it on WP:BIO. It seems people are already confusing WP:BIO as an exemption to the primary criterion-if some sports player is pro, then even if there's no secondary coverage whatsoever, well then, he passes! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 00:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly why we need a specific policy for such cases - as apparently the general WP:N, WP:BIO and related policies fail to prevent such articles from being created and kept. Now that you brought that up, short entries of sportsman (particulary footballers) are another category that needs prunning - it seems that if somebody is highered by a team he will soon be Category:Football (soccer) players...--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 02:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly any policy should certainly cover (visual) artists not just painters. International exhibitions and works bought for public collections are key criteria - normally if these exist the artist's dealer PR will be quick to highlight them. Press/magazine references can be hard to assess at a distance. Street art will be tough to assess - you just have to stick to references. Johnbod 17:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that I'm already guilty of adding a sentence to WP:BIO. That was repeating the point that 1-line facts are no substitute for depth of content in published sources. So I think I appreciate Piotrus's concerns in the Polish AFD debates he's started. In one of those I've already said: 1-line exhibition references [can have] a useful role in AFD debates, particularly in identifying articles that should be given time to develop, but IMO they are not a permanent substitute for published sources that have depth of content. Mereda 16:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a general problem with establishing notabilty of artists because there is hardly an objective criterion. If we say it could be expositions then we have the problem that not every exposition in a reputed venue is notable. If we want to use published sources... not every noted artist has been cited in anything but his exposition catalog's. We could use the revenue ... but then we come to those artists that are just pushed by some galerist or art expert for speculation reasons ... besides where do we put the cut-off? If you say $6000 a day that would include totally non-notables like me (even though I consider myself a laborer not an artist) and exclude most of the notable African artists (who get pennies while their art is sold for big bucks). There are some things that are obvious though, like getting a renowned prize or being selected for a event like the Documenta. Then again .... nobody will dispute van Gogh's notability but he never was selected for a major exposition nor did he sell more than one picture in his life. So my vote would be that as first criterion we use the invitationals. Whoever gets there is notable else he would not be. The second should be if public permanent expositions have bought any art from a person (i.e. Tate modern and so on). No doubt about them either. All the rest is a rubber band definition... it can be extended or shrunk depending on the whim of an AfD Alf photoman 00:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking about it fo a longer period than I should I came up with the following:

Proposal for a guideline to establish notability of artists (fine arts)

1. Fine art is defined as : art (as painting, sculpting, photography and other graphics) that requires more than the average artisan knowledge to be created.(i.e. inspiration, craftsmanship etc.)

2. Artist is defined as : craftsman who uses more than the average craftsmanship required to created artistic expressions.

3. The notability as an artist is defined by the notability of his/her art.

4. Notable art is:

a.) Pieces that have been selected for international awards or expositions(i.e. Documenta)
b.) Pieces that have been purchased by renown expositions (i.e. Tate, MOMA, Gugenheim).
c.) Pieces acquired by municipalities or governments and put on public display other than the vanity image/sculpture of politicians.
d) Pieces that have received critical acclaim from accredited sources such as art critics of major newspapers and/or magazines .
e.) Pieces sold to purchasers independent from the artist at record value.
f.) Pieces that have achieved the highest price for a given year if the purchaser is independent of the artist/agent/gallerist.
g.) Pieces featured in publications independent of the artist.
h.) Pieces featured in art books not published by vanity publishers or those published by vanity publisher having achieved sale figures similar to comparable books by standard publishers ( as determined by sale figures of Borders, Amazon, Bücher.de and so on).

5. All new artist(fine art) entries not citing reliable sources asserting any of the items 4a to 4h will be speedily deleted within one week after a warning is placed on the article requiring sources. This warning should be placed within 24 hours of creation of the article.

Let me know what you think Alf photoman 14:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is along the right lines. My thoughts:

1 & 2) - do we need to define here? Is there another definition we can refer to?
3) yes
4) a & b - ok with rewording "acquired for major public collections" maybe?
c - f) - too loose and vague I think. Dealer/gallery sales prices are not generally public info (& often made-up if they are publicised). Not every town square sculpture/portrait of the major or minister makes the artist notable. d) is important, but needs rewording - is same as g) really.
g) yes but needs expanding, defining
h) yes although sales figures criterion hard to apply & not right for academic etc books. The sales figures will in practice be mostly very small, which is not necessarily a problem. Johnbod 14:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe 1 and 2 are redundant, but I want to make a clear separation between artists and artisans. If the difference is not clear, a craftsman copying Michelangelo's David may do the same physical work as Michelangelo did, but certainly not the creative work. That is the difference. And yews rewording would be OK with me. Alf photoman 01:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but I was hoping somewhere else in WP the job had already been done - artist is no use, Fine art might be. In practice there should not be too many craftsmen who would meet the other criteria anyway. Johnbod 01:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, but I'd like us to define what makes a notable exhibition/gallery/museum. Also, d g and h seems like they can be combined (and we need to define what is a reliable publication that is sufficient for making an artist notable). I'd like to avoid claims that having one's works exhibited in some local village museum, on a homepage or just sold commercially through some commerical webpage makes one notable.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 05:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree totally, the problem is with publications. There are very few art-related ones that do anything but the actual trend so we are back to the Sunday supplement. As to museums, there are important local ones such as the one on Andros Island, Greece. Everybody who is somebody had at least one picture shown there, yet rarely is it ever mentioned in the press. That is because the island is base for several very rich ship-owners who don't care about publicity and do all possible to discourage press coverage. On the other side, if not much evidence is found that these not a small minority we could dismiss them as casuistic Alf photoman 12:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One question for drafting a guideline is structure. I'd suggest thinking about three chunks and then seeing what it looks like:

A- standard introduction like other guidelines

B- positive indicators (probably shorter than Alf photoman's first draft)

C- negative indicators (probably based on Piotrus's points)

And, by the way, though the discussion started with a focus on contemporary artists, IMO it would help editors if we can cover previous generations too. --Mereda 15:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the game with positive/negative indicators, does that mean we should have a score list with one for keep and one for delete and tally at the end? How are we going to handle people with only one famous picture? Not take them because the negative would overweigh the positive? In that case we could delete Juan Bautista de Espinosa, there is only one picture by him yet according to art historians it is important because it is the only one documenting the transition from the Flemish to the Spanish style. I could go on citing extremes but I don't want to bore anybody. Alf photoman 22:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should of course cover artists from all periods (unless called Notability (contemporary artists) but these in pactice are much easier, as the usual criteria based on publications about them will apply. In earlier periods there are many clearly notable, even quite important, artists with no article, and I can't think of many that do have articles whose notability could seriously be questioned. So that is much less of a preoblem, but it should be covered. Johnbod 16:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied Alf's proposal to Wikipedia:Notabilty (artists), I strongly encourage everyone to edit it and/or propose other variants for discussion there.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 04:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above was copied here to help continuity of debate. --Mereda 07:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

Picking up my own suggestion (Feb 20) about a 3-section structure, I've now put a few basic sentences of introduction into the text. If we feel that what we want to say about "not notable" can be covered concisely in this first section, then I admit that my idea about "negative indicators" is unnecessary. But, otherwise, if there is going to be more "nn" detail then I feel that ought to come later - after the "positive" stuff - as a matter of style and presentation. --Mereda 08:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable fine art awards

I have been looking around re. fine art awards and found many more than I have expected so I would like some input of which ones we should take:

Most fine art awards are seemingly awarded in Europe where even small cities like Bonn award 4 with substantial price money. Additionally there are hundreds of private prizes. Price money ranges from 5000 Euros (6.000 dollars) to about 50.000 Euros (1500 Euros in beginner's awards). On the other hand there are prizes that have been awarded since the beginning of last century where prize money is seemingly secondary because it is pretty low.

To be considered for these awards in some cases one has to apply, in others contestants are chosen by an independent jury of art experts.

My proposal would be that we certainly take the older ones (i.e. more than 50 years) regardless of other circumstances. The ones where contestants are chosen should also be on our top list.

The negative list would be awards sponsored exclusively for publicity reasons (i.e Film manufacturers photo contests etc.) and awards that are awarded only once or the amount of prize money and/or press coverage make it evident that they are geared towards amateurs. 17:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Many notable awards, for example in the real of literature, are younger then 50 years. While fine arts does not include literature, I wonder if by excluding newer awards we are not excluding many notable awards: consider that some pretty notable countries (ex. Czech Republic, Slovenia, Ukraine) did not even exist 50 years ago. I'd suggest a different approach: a notable fine art award is, simply, notable - it should be able to holds its own as an individual article (i.e. mentioned in variour reliable sources, etc.). We may want to apply this same rule of thumb to exhibitions, museums, and any kind of source which we would consider are enough to make an artists mentioned/related to them notable.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sounds good, does anybody have an overview about articles already existing, if not should we start a list? Alf photoman 19:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's Category:Art awards to start with. There are probably a lot of gaps in Wiki coverage (like only starting Vincent Award from these discussions) so a list with redlines makes sense to me. The logical point is that "notability" = WP:N, so the redlines are awards that we expect properly-sourced articles can be written about. Beyond the ones we can spot in advance, there are always going to be other valid awards around the globe and IMO the practical answer for them is not a list. The practical answer is more likely to be a statement of principle in a guideline.Mereda 20:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re the above, the annual Turner Prize is by MILES the biggest UK prize, & any winner is absolutely notable just on that. One winner per year - though I think they split it once? It was founded in 1984, prize money £40,000 (80,000 near enough USD). Shortlist of 4; I think even being on that would be fair evidence of notability - you will see on the article only a handful of the 80-odd short-listed artists are currently redlinks. Some very prestigeous prizes don't need to give big bucks though. Johnbod 03:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most don't give big bucks, but there are additional perks... I rather take no money and a highly publicized exposition than 80 grand, it is going to net more due to TV reports, inclusion in Sunday supplements and so on Alf photoman 15:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overlapping with similar guidelines

First of all, we need to make sure we are not contradicting Wikipedia:Notability (people). We should also not try to create more restrictive guideline: i.e. if an artist passes WP:N(P), he should pass WP:N(Artist) and vice versa. Our proposal should simplify dealing with artists, not make it harder for them to get included on Wikipedia or add another layer of beaurocracy.

Second, if we are dealing with Fine art only, the current title is somewhat confusing - as musicians described in Wikipedia:Notability (music) are artists, obviously, but not 'fine artists'. This should be included in the title: if we keep 'arists' we should include musicians, if not, we need to change the title.

Third. One way or another, Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) should be subsumed into our guideline. Fine arts includes film by (our) definition, thus actors - I see no reason why they would need a separate notability guideline. I actually would suggest working closely with Wikipedia:Notability (films) and developing a secton on notability of actors in general with the help of editors interested in that aspect.

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

regarding "Third": A wonderful idea in principle, but note the pornographic film industry is rather extreme in the film industry in many ways: very large number of units produced, extremely low mainstream coverage relative to industry size, extremely high Internet coverage relative to industry size... --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate on my first point, the relevant parts of WP:BIO are:

Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by:
- Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers⁴
- A large fan base, fan listing, or "cult" following
- An independent biography
- Name recognition
- Commercial endorsements
Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work.
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.

This should be reflected by our article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree that actors and painters are generally notable for different reasons. An actor is generally noted by the degree of recognition among the broad public, while most painters are noted by the recognition of a small group of specialists. Actors are generally there for the moment (cause, sincerely who really knows nowadays who E. J. Robinson or Ed Wood was, yet in their day they were notable) while so far sculptors and painters have left a legacy through their work that lasts centuries and therefore measured by a totally different standard as actors Alf photoman 22:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this necessary?

It seems like all we need to add is a line in WP:BIO that says "producers of notable works, though those known solely for their affiliation with a single work may be better off merged with its page" and that'd work for authors of notable books, creators of notable paintings, directors of notable films, etc. Notability in general is nontrivial coverage in independent sources, and things like art reviews or criticism would obviously pass that. I'm not sure if there's anyone this standard would allow the inclusion of who's currently dubious. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We already have

Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work.
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.

which seems to account for most artists anyway. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically this guideline is supposed to serve as clarification and helpful reference during the AfDs. Sure, WP:BIO is enough in theory - but nonetheless we have a growing number of specific guidelines, which help as instead of applying general guidelines and translating it into the language of the subfield (academia, artists, politicians) every time we have this shortcut (and consider that this is the same logic that WP:BIO used when split from WP:N - we are have adapted notability from general ideas to people, and are now adopting it to specific groups of people).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 03:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And we started the whole discussion with the practical issue of interpreting "painters, sculptors ... whose work is widely recognised" for contemporary artists advertising their work widely on the web. As someone said Feb 14 "I think we need something more specific to prevent - as one of the commentators on AFD put it - turning Wikipedia into an artist webdirectory." So far at least we've not boiled down our thinking into something concise enough that would fit within WP:BIO, but let's see what we end up with. If we can clarify a broad field of artists then that would be worth a neat separate guideline. --Mereda 07:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would much prefer adding a line or two to WP:BIO than creating a separate and possibly divergent guideline for individual professions. >Radiant< 11:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is where the discussion started, the problem is with one or two lines we cannot remedy the biggest problem, avoiding that Wiki turns into an artist webdirectory. Almost every artist, notable or not, can come up with some mentions in a newspaper about opening an exposition or being part of one. That would suffice WP:BIO criteria (heck, even I can come up with those) but that is not a reliable indicator of notability because nothing is said about the quality of the exposition Alf photoman 14:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't meet WP:BIO as it would be trivial. Editors have commonsense and a few lines in a newspaper about an exhibition in the village hall would obviously not be seen as sufficient. There will be grey areas of course, but they will be scrutinised in the debate, and considered along with any other factors. Tyrenius 02:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or sportsman webdictionary, politician webdictionary, etc. WP:BIO is a catch all, but its useful to have helpful detailed policies on most popular subgroups, so we don't have to reinterpret WP:BIO for each group. Think of it as 'writing down precedents': this guideline (and similar) is nothing new, it's just details of consistent WP:BIO interpretations that has been (re)invented over and over again during many artists AfDs.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, try "one or two paragraphs" in WP:BIO? I mean, yes, you do have a good point, but it's going to be seriously confusing if we come up with a dozen or so biography-related guidelines for various professions. I would really prefer keeping them on one page for clarity's sake. >Radiant< 10:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I object this needless instruction creep I believe that the Primary Criterion handles artists etc. just fine, but at most a line or two of clarification at People should suffice. Like most permutations it is mostly restating the basics or the obvious. --Kevin Murray 19:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having just scrutinised WP:BIO, I am inclined to agree with you. I think it covers most of what we need, and gives editors parameters to interpret with common sense and good judgement. I have made some suggestions on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). I think the current proposal on Wikipedia:Notability (artists) is far too prescriptive. Looking at recent visual arts-related AfDs, I would say the system is working just fine and the correct results coming about. In that case, it ain't broke, so there's no need to fix it. If any particular refinements are needed, then we can talk about them. Tyrenius 02:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing to balance past v. contemporary artists

Looking at the current version of para 3, I think we're accidentally starting with an emphasis on contemporary or recent artists that we don't need. And I think we can align it better with WP:N at the same time. How about:-

"3. Notable art is:

a) A piece that has been featured in multiple notable publications of art history or art criticism, art journals, or other reliable sources such as major newspapers, magazines or documentary films.
b) A piece that has been purchased or displayed by notable expositions (e.g. Documenta, Tate, MOMA, Guggenheim Museum).
c) A piece acquired by government (national, state or major city) and put on public display (e.g. Zygmunt's Column or Washington Monument) - but excluding vanity images/sculpture of living politicians.
d) A piece that has been selected as the winner of a notable award (Abd-el-Tif prize, Marcel Duchamp Prize, Carnegie Prize see Category:Art awards).
e) A piece sold at record value for its field to a purchaser independent from the artist, or that achieved the highest price for a given year if the purchaser is independent of the artist/agent/gallerist."

You'll see that I'm also suggesting singular is enough, to pick up the Juan Bautista de Espinosa point. --Mereda 08:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

looks good, like we are getting somewhere Alf photoman 15:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. The para 3 wording is swapped over now. --Mereda 07:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-recent artists aren't really a problem, because a) they should stand or fall on the normal WP:BIO criteria of scholarly publications - there just aren't any that the art history biz has not found & thesised-up! b) they are not around to stick up self-promo articles, and their works are too dispersed for dealers to bother. Juan Bautista de Espinosa would pass the normal WP:BIO hurdles with ease, as his work has lots of academic ghits & will be in all the textbooks on Spanish Golden Age painting. Same for loads of medieval painters with only one work known - see Castelseprio for example - a 20 screen bibliography on the official website for maybe 10 sq metres of fresco. I do worry that relaxing the criteria in this was we will let in lots of artist who had one work exhibited during an exhibition at eg the very good,but small Spencer Museum of Art in Kansas.

I watch the print-making categories, and you hardly ever get questionably notable articles about those more than say 30 years under the sod. Before about 1870 we are actually missing tons of quite significant artists. Johnbod 03:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, it mirrors my observations closely.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 04:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then off to the library and get them in here ... we want to be better than the competitiors Alf photoman 14:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tyrenius/Draft_1

I thought maybe there's no point re-inventing the wheel, so as an experiment, I took the page Wikipedia:Notability (music) as a model, adapted it and did a bit of self-brain-storming, which is on my Draft 1 page above. It is only a draft for a draft, maybe a catalyst. I think it's important to remember we are trying to draw up guidelines, not rules, so they don't need to be too specific in terms of mentioning actual examples. Some of the above conversation is getting too pedantic and prescriptive. The judgement of editors will makes a suitable interpretation if the right principles are enunciated. We need to think in terms both of how editors have evaluated artists in AfDs etc, and also how the world and the art world reach an evaluation in real life. Through stating some possible means whereby sufficient notability can be merited, we instantly exclude the definite non-notable and instantly include the absolutely notable, while giving a gradation in between where the only deciding factor possible will be editorial evaluation. What we don't want is a rigid "tick list", which would be impossibly unwieldy to achieve and is not the wiki way. We are "editors" in order to make editorial judgements! I'm not quite sure where to go from here, so I'll see what sort of reaction I get first. Tyrenius 06:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like that, but every "major", "significant" etc begs a question (as in the current draft), and I think some of the criteria are covered by the basic & normal book/media coverage one:6, 11, 13, 15, 19. What distinguishes notability for artists from that for other people are the significance of exhibitions, prizes,and sales to major collections (or for major prices). I appreciate yours is very comprehensive, but I think where people pass anyway on normal WP:BIO, we don't need to spell out things here. My thoughts. Johnbod 05:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable enough, though I think it is OK to use terms like "significant" and allow them to be interpreted by editors when making their assessment. A degree of latitude is not disasterous, and would certainly rule out something which is patently not significant. Tyrenius 06:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see this merged with the proposal here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 04:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to take what you want from it. Tyrenius 06:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rejecting this guideline

What has evolved here is not significantly different than what is evolving at WP:BIO. I suggest that this has become redundant and in the interest of simplicity and preventing further instruction creep this be rejected. --Kevin Murray 04:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. This is much more useful for artist-related AfD then WP:BIO.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 05:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite some specifics? --Kevin Murray 06:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on. The reworking of creative professionals in WP:BIO has moved a good bit towards meeting our concerns for clarification in this field; and, personally, I'd rather have one good guideline than a clutter of mini-guidelines. But what we've got here as a group of editors is a focus on applying a guideline in practice. It feels too soon to me (since we started talking and testing AFDs in mid-Feb) to say that development here should be stopped. --Mereda 07:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But, could these fine efforts be focused to a broader effort? Could the more specific issues be discussed in an essay? --Kevin Murray 08:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider also that WP:PROF was in development for over a year, and it first started to be used as an argument at AfD debetes and only after it became a custom, it was seriously considered for a guideline (and I am suprised it is not one yet, actually).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 14:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be preferable to use WP:BIO (possibly by adding subsections to it) rather than creating a separate (and possibly divergent) guideline for lots of different professions. Otherwise we'd get WP:POLITICIAN, WP:DOCTOR, WP:FIREMAN etc. That doesn't mean the content of this page is bad, of course. >Radiant< 09:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Principally there is nothing wrong with expanding WP:BIO, but it would have to be in such a fashion that the concerns that created this draft would be addressed. That would make WP:BIO about twice as long. As is WP:BIO is as open as a barn door for every less than not-notable artist to come in and be nominated for deletion. Nothing wrong with that either if it were not that many notables get deleted right along with them. Alf^Photoman 12:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A group of editors concentrating on artist AfDs are discovering issues that are particularly pertinent to artists, who tend as a breed to be rather more self-promotional than the average doctor or fireman. Notability within their field may not be so apparent through the usual means as it would be for a politician, for example, as it is a more specialised and often less publicly covered occupation. I suggest that this proposal is allowed to work through such issues to determine what they are and how they should be treated. At such point, it would be appropriate to see if a happy integration can be achieved with WP:BIO. Artists have been a relatively neglected area on wiki hitherto, and it would be good to take advantage of the fact that editorial interest is now being focused on them. Tyrenius 01:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a reasonable approach. If you want to discuss artist-specific issues and can demonstrate consensus for that, go for it. I am somewhat dubious as to whether there will be consensus to keep it on a separate page, but feel free to prove me wrong. >Radiant< 10:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alf, I'm not seeing much here that is not carefully covered at BIO with the recent revisions, which drew from this text. --Kevin Murray 20:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Case #4 is a restatement of other policies or guidelines which is not specific to artists.--Kevin Murray 20:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The record for highest sale value could not be verified without a source, so how does this add to inclusion? Who would dispute such a claim to nobility, thus this special condition is a statement of the obvious. --Kevin Murray 20:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider that this gives us specific examples to think about during AfD. I don't think everybody would agree off the top of their head that highest sale value makes one notable, or what is a notable exposition at so on. By having this written here we don't have to clutter WP:BIO with such details.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 23:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I might be more inclined to agree with your premise if every permutation from BIO didn't try to restate the upper echelon guidelines and stuck to the pertinent variations. However, attempting to specifying every case for notable exhibitions is problematic instruction creep, and the highest price in an art class is subjective as to timeframes and breadth of class. You need to give our editors some credit, and not try to centralize the control of minutia.--Kevin Murray 00:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How can we fine-tune BIO to address your concerns? --Kevin Murray 20:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have a very special case here, one the one side the artists who are mostly accomplished self-projectors, on the other hand we have a public that accepts about anything a gallerist tells them and art-experts more interested in keeping the value of their recommendations as high as possible to increase their fame as experts. In between all that is art, which is - at the end of the day - the only thing lasting. The biggest concern that crystallized out of discussion we had before is to keep the art in the center -- therefore a notable artist is he/she who created notable art and the definition should go more towards the notability of their creation Alf^Photoman 20:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that being acomplished here any more solidly than it is at the revised BIO page; however, I agree with your premise that the body of work for any creative profession is the core of the notability (aka: encyclopedic suitability). --Kevin Murray 21:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand... I don't really care where the guideline is, maybe even this fear of ending up with WP:MEDIC and WP:FIREMAN is not so unfounded Alf^Photoman 21:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Recent results from visual arts-related AfDs seem entirely correct and indicate the system at present is working well per WP:BIO, reinforced by WP:ATT and WP:RS. I suggest we stick with those for the time being, see if they continue to serve our needs and discuss any refinements or riders that might help. The less rules the better. We are after all editors, not functionaries. Tyrenius 02:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I agree we should let things continue at the AfD VA page (thanks for setting that up, which I don't think i've said before) & see what emerges. It is already interesting how discussions do focus on press & exhibitions, whilst other things in the drafts, especially prices, haven't featured so far as I've been following the page. So we may harden up criteria (or we may not) in a way that can usefully be set as policy. Johnbod 02:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) I'm coming to this conversation late, but I definitely support the creation of a WP:Notability (artists) policy. (I was just looking around to see if there was such a policy and came across this proposed one.) While Notability (people): Creative professionals is an OK guideline in terms of generalities, it really doesn't cover the specifics of what might constitute a "notable exhibition" or "notable award". The specifics of what might constitute notability for an artist are best discussed in a document devoted specifically to the subject. (I feel the same way for other subsets of creative professions, such as scientists, BTW.) The guidelines under "creative professionals" are so non-specific that practically any working gallery artist can be included, since just about any gallery artist at some point in their career will receive grants (a kind of award) or be part of a group exhibition of some kind (which some might construe as "notable"). Unless Wikipedia is to open to articles about practically every single working artist on earth, there needs to be some qualification to establish notability. A few things that I have in mind that might establish notability:

Being the subject of a published monograph (excluding self-published ones).
Being the subject of a solo exhibit at a major museum. (I'd consider anything from the Oakland Museum on up to the Louvre to count as a "major museum".)
Has work that is in the permanent collection of a major museum.
Inclusion in a major annual/biennnial/triennial event, such as the Whitney Biennial or Venice Biennale.
Being the subject (not just brief mention) of a full article (not just a review) in a major art magazine such as ArtForum, Flash Art, Aperture, etc.
Is the recipient of a notable art award, like the Marcel Duchamp Prize or National Medal of Arts, or other art award from a notable institution, such as the Award in Art from the American Academy and Institute of Arts and Letters.
The artists work is the subject of a documentary film (that has actually been shown) or television program (such as a segment of Art:21).

The details could be hashed out as to how high to raise the bar and what might be considered notable, but those are some ideas, anyway. Peter G Werner 01:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The factor that you're not taking into account, which at the end of the day is the most important one, is the good judgement of editors. The guideline might specify "award" which literally would include a £200 grant from a local arts council, but editors will simply rule in an AfD that such an award is not significant enough to merit inclusion by itself. Likewise a "group exhibition" will be assessed by editors as to whether it is a run-of-the-mill commercial gallery exhibit or something of greater repute. As I've already pointed out, these things are working fine at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts. It it ain't broke... Tyrenius 02:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still think some specific guidelines would be a good thing on balance, especially since that offers potential authors some guidelines when considering whether to contributing an article. It also offers guidelines for editors who are considering whether to nominate for an AfD. While WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts might be doing very good work, it might be have some guidelines for heading off problems before they reach AfD stage. Peter G Werner 06:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are specific guidelines in WP:N and WP:BIO, which basically derive from WP:ATT, and all state that there has to be sufficient substantiation from acceptable sources for an article. A little bit of experience writing articles or looking at AfDs soon starts giving the picture of how things work. Tyrenius 06:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet points

Please don't use bullet points for indenting talk. Use colons per WP:TPG. Thanks. Tyrenius 02:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Providing needed information

(adapted from my post on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people))
We should be thinking in terms not only of who we consider notable (i.e. our award to the person, as it were) but also in terms of whom we should provide information about in order to properly inform a reader interested in the topic. They are often, but not always, the same. I think wiki can provide a great service by collating information that exists (with verifiable sources that support notability) but is not necessarily easy to get hold of or to find in one handy form. That's the purpose of an encyclopedia - a one stop knowledge shop. Take Hoxton/Shoreditch for example. It is an area with a worldwide reputation for "cutting edge" art. If it's doing its job properly, wiki should be able to give anyone interested in it a comprehensive insight into its activities, galleries, artists, shows etc. It may be harder to find information on some of e.g. the people involved, than it might be for a bog standard professional gallery artist, yet they are actually of more note in terms of historic interest. Editorial judgement has a part to play in this, and any guidelines must allow some flexibility. Rigid rules can sometimes produce the opposite outcome to that which they were implemented to achieve.

Tyrenius 06:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected Tag

No progress has been made toward consensus to adopt this as a guideline and the topic seems well covered now at BIO. I suggest that efforts to fine tune be focused at BIO. --Kevin Murray 18:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3O

User:Radiant! requested a third opinion on the matter of the inclusion or otherwise of the rationale for rejection on a number of project pages. I believe that given this is quoting directly from WP:POL, this is duplication, and is not necessary. However, if User:Kevin Murray feels that other editors may be in doubt over the matter of why the pages are considered rejected, it may be appropriate to leave a note on this talk page (possibly under the "rejected" header above). Chris cheese whine 10:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability (artists)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Notability (artists). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 14#Notability (artists) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]