Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Tse

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. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Tse

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Artist is not notable by WP's standards. No references from independent sources providing significant discussion are provided, and there are no hits in Google News or Google Books. Some awards are listed, none of them appear very notable--the most notable one of them is the National Open Art Competition of Chichester (no Wiki article), where subject was a finalist with this work--but 'finalist' here means one of one hundred and twenty-two, if all the thumbnailed images on the gallery page are finalists (subject is not listed among the winners). In short, no notability: delete. Drmies (talk) 14:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no definition of "notability" in WPs guidelines. It appears to have been defined by the user Drmies who does not state their expertise. The same user who has raised the issue of deletion may have done this because their recent editorials showed that they were inexperienced with academic referencing and had to be undone. They demonstrate this again in what they say below. The facts that were referenced in the article are basic biographical facts. They therefore do not need sources "providing significant discussion" because they are uncontentious. A Wiki article on The National Open Art Competition of Chichester is not a measure of its notability. The user's editing (and deletions) of other wikipedia articles should be investigated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.218.11 (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By academic standards, the independent, secondary sources given in the "references section" are adequate enough for substantiating the basic biographical facts of this artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.218.11 (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Academic standards? At my university, links to blogs and the cultural art center do not count as reliable sources. I didn't make up the guidelines for notability: you can read them add your leisure at WP:N. The guidelines for including biographic facts are found at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. I don't know what you are referring to with edits of mine that had to be undone, I don't know if you really believe I'm conspiring against the topic of the article (which, I am sure, is not you, since that would be a conflict of interest), and I don't know if you really want my editing investigated--but you are welcome to. You can start at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, where you may have others look at my work here. In the meantime, I would suggest that you not be led into personally attacking other editors simply because you are unfamiliar with our policies and guidelines. Besides, if I am so incredibly wrong, have faith in other editors here, who, if you are correct, will no doubt chime in and chide me for irresponsible behavior. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The blog you refer to appears to chart the residency programme in Japan and is part of the professional requirements of that residency. If it is stated that an artist did a residency then it needs to be backed up evidentially. Obviously, if a better source is discovered then that should be used too, but not simply in its place. It is a fact of modern academic life these days that internet sources ARE used (blogs and all), even in academic papers in journals. It depends what academic level you are at. If you are professor then you will know what I mean, but if a degree student then you won't be allowed to use those kinds of sources. Internet sources are usually cited in specific ways though (giving the URL AND a date) and I think Wikipedia should begin to think about adopting professional citation systems for internet sources. My own view, is that footnotes should be manually edited and not simply linked to a URL.

If you read through the article carefully there is nothing that is contentious factually. It is biographical fact and I would say, in my experience, it is even OVER cited. However, the publication mentioned does need a citation and evidencing. The issue is not the content here (which appears thin anyway), but the academic machinery- how to discern fact and opinion.

No I am not the subject...although I would love a holiday in Japan! I think most articles like this do go up by the people involved but then get edited and improved by others. But that is why Wikipedia is unique and contains the nuggets of information that make it important. The subject of the article is clearly not multi-famous, but that is not what an encyclopaedia is simply about. All best to you. 86.172.218.11 (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The user below does not define what they mean by "notable" and does not outline their expertise in the matter in order to contextualise their opinion of "notability" for us. The article appears to state *evidenced* facts (not "puffery") about this artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.218.11 (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, delete, not notable and an article full of puffery created by a user who's only contribution is this piece. Fiedorczuk (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Like the editor above, I am concerned about the lack of independent sourcing and the apparently self-promotional style of this article. --DAJF (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in Chinese, the subject has one instance of coverage in a major newspaper (Taiwan's United Daily News). I added this to the article and did some cleanup, but I don't really have much opinion on her notability. Drmies is probably correct that whoever wrote this Wikipedia article is going based on personal knowledge of the subject rather than independent, reliable sources. For example, I can't find anywhere on the internet to verify the claim that she attended True Light Middle School [1]. cab (call) 01:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is not notable by Wiki standards per WP:N or WP:ARTIST. There is only one reliable source and this is not enough to meet notability requirements for Wikipedia. freshacconci talktalk 02:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been on the article this morning. Whoever has edited it recently has done a great job. They are obviously experienced! I'm afraid I can't say that about the editorial comments above. Again, they are showing their lack of professional experience. The subject is a living, contemporary person. Interviews and personal acquaintance ARE acceptable as PRIMARY evidence. For that is what secondary sources are actually MADE UP of. Primary is stronger and MORE RELIABLE than secondary evidence. However, to point out, yet again, the article is actually evidenced with secondary sources that ARE independent. One wonders if the editors above are actually reading the material thoroughly. How can they say it is not independent? If we have to back up such basic facts as high school, then we might as well start finding facts to back up our names and birth dates. Some basic facts (that do not directly impinge on contestation) have to be taken circumstantially. The subject, we agree, is Chinese, female, and was born in Hong Kong. They are unlikely then to have attended Eton. If evidence arises that does back up the fact (or contradicts it) then it should be altered immediately. Or better still, a foot note could be added to the article about it. If the presence of the school name does reflect that the subject (or family member etc.) BEGAN the article one has to consider whether such a lie, given the present reputation of the artist, would in fact damage their future reputation in the public sphere. What I mean is what have they really got to gain here by lying about their high school? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.31.141 (talk) 10:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:V carefully. It is a core Wikipedia policy. freshacconci talktalk 12:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it and it is standard. What is your point? The contentious facts in the article in question are backed up with independent sources. An over cited article is amateurish and the material is very thin anyway. I'd say leave the school name in, but if people feel strongly then just put "educated in Hong Kong". I feel strongly that the article should have the deletion status removed because we are not now discussing the reasons why it was first put up for nomination. The debate has shifted to one or two fact citations (of basic facts), which a consensus can easily be reached on. If the person didn't have some notability in some circles, particularly in Asia, then they wouldn't have any independent articles about them. I do feel strongly though that this whole debate DOES bring into question editors in general. You can read all the guidelines you want, but some expertise in the specialist area is important for judging content and applying guidelines in a balanced way. This is how encyclopaedias are edited in general using specialists. I'm a specialist in the arts, but I wouldn't dream of touching articles on Wikipedia on science or politics. How Wikipedia could begin to manage it though I just couldn't imagine. Unless they asked editors to register and verify their own experitise, academic level and experience. For all I know you and the other editors above might be high school kids. And for all you know I might be. I exaggerate, but it is an important point that this debate raises more widely. 86.149.69.255 (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that you clearly did not read it thoroughly or do not understand what reliable sources mean in the context of Wikipedia. The deletion process cannot be stopped. It lasts for 7 days at which time an administrator decides on which way consensus falls, keep or delete (or as "no consensus", which defaults to keep). If you do not like how Wikipedia is run, you may not like it here. Anyone can edit pretty much any article they wish. We work through consensus-building and collaboration which takes negotiation. As I suggested, read WP:V and read the info in the top template on the deletion process. This artist is young and has very little yet to show in regards to notability. She may someday be notable, but my opinion is she is not at this time. Blogs and other self-published sources do not count as reliable, third-party sources (and nor do they count for academic purposes either I might add). And notice I do not mention electronic sources as those can be acceptable, but again not blogs or small independently-run sites. WP:V clearly outlines what is a proper source. If you read it you will understand why only one source in the article is useful in any way towards establishing notability. What you feel Wikipedia should be is actually quite irrelevant to this discussion. If you feel that notability requirements should be loosened, you can address that concern there. We as editors and the closing administrator can only go by current and accepted Wikipedia policy and guidelines and not on the whim of any editor, whether it's you or me. freshacconci talktalk 20:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but as an academic I can tell you that ALL sources ARE used in academic work, especially if the subject or topic is highly contemporary. By "third-party" I guess you mean primary sources? An article written by an artist is far more valuable (and reliable) than one written at second hand. An historian always writes ideologically. It is never independent. This article was nominated for deletion because one of the editors did not appear to like their editorial work being undone. By the sounds of it, they may be a student. My opinion is that this subject does have some notability- else why would she have been written about independently? And to repeat again, the reliability of a source depends on WHAT kind of fact is being evidenced. A blog (that is clearly a professional requirement of the residency and not a personal, random one) can be used to evidence the existence of a residency. The residency is also under the rubric of professional institutions and sponsors. There is more than one independent and reliable source here for the facts that are being evidenced. Obviously, if it were contentious ("this artist is recognised as one of the most important artists in Hong Kong etc.") then that would need heavy and balanced citation, but even then it would still involve the judgement of a specialist with knowledge in the field. And no doubt someone would take issue. At the moment, the article is over cited for an encyclopaedia. It would be better to just have one citation at the end of the paragraph not after every sentence. It looks like it is by someone who is just learning how to cite. It is not a question of loosening the requirements, if anything, I have been tightening them, rather it is the editors being honest about their expertise in a certain area. What is your expertise here? Do you have specialist knowledge in art? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.141.32 (talk) 11:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC) 81.129.141.32 (talk) 11:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have standards for the notability of artists in WP:CREATIVE, and she does not meet them or even come near : no major awards (and no actual awards at all except the "pearn & Proctor" award, for which I can find no mention even in Google) , no major one-person shows (& in fact no one person shows at all), no work in major collections (and no mention of any work in any collection at all) DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is not established...Modernist (talk) 05:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.