Talk:Michele Zalopany

Notability
There is only one actual source on the article. The Altalena source just proves the existence of a certain art. While I support the arts I could not find reliable sources to substantiate notability. A stub BLP article must still be more than a dictionary entry. The second source does not actually offer anything and certainly the article is relegated to being a pseudo biography. Otr500 (talk) 05:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed all the tags. See WP:artist 4)d, which talks about museum collections. Permanent collections are curated by museum curators, and are extremely hard to get into; she is in two of them. The curator here can be seen as the equivalent of a newspaper editor. Yes, it could use more material; however everything in the article is well sourced.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 10:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Greetings, I came across some stub articles such as this one and at the time, and after a simple search on the subject, there was an issue on sourcing. I generally tag articles when I see issues but unlike some I periodically go through my past edits and perform a review.
 * I am a proponent for not only the arts, but coverage on Wikipedia of women and especially articles like Mary Love (artist). I see that you have recently created many stubs on women artists. The bottom line is that going forward I may look at some of them, but since you are certainly active, I will more than likely drop a note on the talk page, especially if I am pressed for time. Otr500 (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure. I added four or five sources, via my own simple search.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I see sources were added. A problem, especially with an artist that has works like the subject, is that an article on a person cannot be "just about the works" or links that just provide evidence that a work exists. On a biography or autobiography, and more especially a WP:BLP, there has to be biographical information, at least available, so there does not end up being the above mentioned pseudo biography or valid questions concerning notability. Any threshold of clearing WP:NARTIST, cannot ignore or water down other criteria too low because it might not survive an AFD, or could end up a merge or redirect which would not be a benefit.
 * After [|"seeing this"], that might be noble but seems silly, I applaud your contributions.
 * As an active participant at AFD I see how many article discussions sometimes end up heading. As a repeat I will offer that some sources are just fine for content but may not advance notability. When I searched I looked more for "the meat" over just sources that pointed to a work in a gallery (your simple search), and particularly sources that offered biographical information. A lithograph that the National Gallery of Art claims is "not on view with no image available" may be determined not to satisfy any notability criteria.


 * Having stated all of this, and noting that I like the idea, it does not help to imply that I do not know various policies and guidelines (as noted on my talk page) as that could cause alienation and reconsideration. "IF" anyone assumes that NARTIST has precedent over other policies and guidelines they might be mistaken. It might also be a mistake to make such a statement while providing sources that can be found severely lacking in providing actual evidence of notability.
 * Before you take exceptions to my comments please understand that I would prefer none of the articles you have created go to AFD. If I did I certainly know how to nominate. I am patient an can bide time while issues of sourcing are hopefully resolved. I will even try to find sources to affirm notability according to policies and guidelines when time allows. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 05:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please place any message you have for me on my talk page, not on the article talk page.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)