Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina Oiticica


 * 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   keep. meets GNG and WP:CREATIVE; currently reads like an advert and needs massaging for tone and integration of sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 00:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Christina Oiticica
Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Does not appear to meet WP:N and WP:CREATIVE. Interesting, but I don't see notability. Frank |  talk  12:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. Artist whose work has been exhibited in major museums throughout the world.  12 media stories in 4 different countries are linked (although one or two of them seem to be syndicated stories appearing in multiple papers).  95 hits in google news.   I see no way in which this artist could possibly be considered not notable. JulesH (talk) 12:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't think it meets WP:NOTABILITY for an artist. §FreeRangeFrog 19:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Keep My vote was cast in haste and with little forethought, apologies. Sources do clearly establish notability. §FreeRangeFrog 19:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Why not redirect to the article on her husband instead. Not sure you can wrest an entire standalone page for her. §FreeRangeFrog 19:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Because she isn't her husband? Because discussing her or her work in more than the briefest fashion in the page about her husband would be somewhat peculiar?  Besides, I still don't see how you think she doesn't meet WP:N.  There are 12 stories linked from the article, most of which appear to be distinct from each other, all of which are in reliable sources, and all of which offer substantial coverage of her and her work.  OK, this only establishes a "presumption" of notability, but in the face of such a presumption, I'd suggest it's up to those who think she isn't notable to explain exactly why they think she doesn't meet the guidelines. JulesH (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * They're not distinct, they are different stories about the same two works at the same places. The Galician article talks about the same thing as the Spanish one, as the Brazilian one, as the Italian one. I can read Spanish, Italian and Portuguese well enough. So you have two different "events" around two different works reported on different non-national media. Does that establish notability? I don't think it does. In fact the only reason I think she's notable is because of who she's married to, which is why I suggested merging the information into the other article if it doesn't meet notability and/or not enough of the material can be sourced. §FreeRangeFrog 09:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't matter. By "distinct" I mean "not the same text"... i.e. "intellectually independent" as required by WP:N.  Yes, I'm aware that they're discussing the same two works, but I don't see why this is an issue.  If an artist has only 2 notable works, that doesn't mean the artist is not notable.  I'd go so far as to say an artist with a single notable work is usually notable; and WP:CREATIVE agrees with me.  I don't think her husband has anything to do with this, as he gets at best a passing mention (and in many cases no mention at all) in the linked articles.
 * Again, WP:N states that if there are multiple significant independent reliable sources about a subject, the subject is presumed to be notable. We have here multiple significant independent reliable sources, so there is a presumption of notability.  Why is that presumption wrong? JulesH (talk) 09:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Having read the websites linked, I agree that they are indeed reviewing the same artwork in different languages, however they are sufficently different and independent of each other. I myself, have come to the conclusion that the artist does indeed qualify as notable and that she should retain a place in wikipedia independent of her husbands page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samerandomhero (talk • contribs) 19:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment JulesH - You are indeed right. I must apologize, especially since I posted twice trying to make the same incorrect point. The relationship to a well-known figure and the linked articles and the fact that they seem to refer to the same two "thing" caused my brain to skid on WP:ONEEVENT, or at least I think that was it. Cold medications sure don't help either. §FreeRangeFrog 19:34, 4 February 2009 (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.