Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ana Prvacki (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus on notability, default to delete given plausible deletion request from subject. (NC default to D is a discretion allowed by BLP policy.) Deryck C. 22:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Ana Prvacki
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Declined speedy. Rationale was "subject requests deletion". As that's not a valid rationale, am bringing the article here for discussion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, looks like a well-sourced article this time.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's a convention that, where a not-massively-notable living person requests deletion of an article about them, we can comply as a courtesy.  Ana Prvacki isn't so notable as to require an article; and she's not so un-notable as to make deletion mandatory.  This is in the discretionary zone.  In my opinion it's a good use of discretion to remove a marginally-notable BLP at the subject's request.— S Marshall  T/C 11:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete I agree with S Marshall, and my personal discretion says that at least vanity articles like this should be removed. The sourcing could also be seen as so poor as not to grant notability. complainer (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Although I am sympathetic when someone has an article written about them and they'd prefer not to be profiled on Wikipedia, this is actually a slightly different situation. Prvacki herself apparently wrote the article and we clearly warn all would-be editors that writing an article on yourself is an issue, particularly because once it's out there it is no longer "their" article. In short, she published this info and now wants to control the information. This is something she should have considered before writing the initial article. As other editors have since edited the article there is a clear indication that this article may have been written by someone else at some point. The artist has a significant exhibition record. This brings up the second issue: at times there is a certain inevitability to these things. An artist puts herself out there by displaying the work in public. The higher your profile the more public you are. At a certain point you cannot control the public image if you are a public figure. All we can do at that point is maintain BLP standards. The artist made a series of choices by becoming a public figure and writing an article on herself. Now she's attempting to control that public image by requesting a deletion. The problem is, there seems to be no clear rationale for deletion, at least that I'm aware of. Is there a BLP concern here? Has she contacted anyone by email with sensitive information? We cannot delete an article because the subject requests it unless there are serious concerns per WP:BLP. I see none so far. As for actual notability, based on her exhibition record she may be notable enough to pass WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. I'd have to search for sources to see if there's enough independent and solid references available to establish and verify the claims made before I !vote on this, so at this time I'm neutral. However, I don't see how we can delete this based on the subject's request.  freshacconci  talk talk  14:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering that the author herself is notably silent about the subject, my impression is that this is just an attempt at conceptual art. I suggest we disregard it. complainer (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 02:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  TheSpecialUser TSU 01:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Probable keep Although a lot of the cited sources aren't independent, there's still at least 3 independent sources cited, including Artforum. In addition, her piece Greeting Committee got a fair bit of coverage and there's also an online interview, and work featured in The Independent (UK), to indicate she's a well-known artist. Since she's still making art and getting press coverage, it seems odd to delete this on grounds of privacy. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Once and IF sthere is additional evidence of notability an article about her can be created at that time. She does not appear to have the notability to keep the article about her on wikipedia at this time.--Juristicweb (talk) 02:02, 26 August 2012 (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.