Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corina Apostol


 * 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. Daniel (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Corina Apostol

 * – ( View AfD View log )

For one, the sourcing is deeply uninspiring:


 * Awards pages: ,
 * Employer/affiliate blurbs:, ,
 * Book sale page:
 * ”About” page for a platform the subject helped start: ,
 * University press releases: ,
 * Interview — one of three subjects interviewed — regarding an exhibit they prepared:

Except perhaps for the last, which has no quotable biographical material, essentially nothing here is independent; practically everything is expressly linked to the subject.

For another, nothing the subject has done really suggests notability, as defined by WP:BASIC or WP:ARTIST. Merely being nominated for some awards isn’t generally a signifier of notability. Neither is getting a PhD and doing routine things with that, like managing a gallery, creating an exhibit, editing a book, etc. Sure, it’s a nice career, but nothing out of the ordinary. — Biruitorul Talk 18:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment there are a few decently-sized mentions in Google Books. At the moment it is true that the sourcing is largely primary. I would lean to retain this though, since the Venice Biennale gig is extremely prestigious.  --- Possibly &#9742; 19:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The artistic director for the entire Biennale is probably notable. The curator for a national pavilion, one of a couple dozen? I’m more skeptical. — Biruitorul Talk 20:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on the WP:SECONDARY sourcing I have been able to find about this particular pavillion, i.e. Norman, Razavi and Saal to represent Estonia at 59th Venice Biennale (ERR, 2020), “People are not sure if they are putting me in danger when writing about my work.” (Blok, 2020), and what the CCA ("Estonian Pavilion at the Venice Biennale is the most extensive and significant international art project for Estonia, produced by CCA since 1999"), and Apostol have said (Blok, 2020), there appears to be notability for her work in this context. Beccaynr (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It is highly, highly prestigious to be the curator chosen to curate a country's contribution to the Venice Biennale. Imagine you get a call saying "hey, we know there are dozens of other people we could have called, but we would like You to curate this major show representing your country." It's a big deal in the art world, and a big deal for anyone to be selected as a country-level representative. --- Possibly &#9742; 22:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Contrary to what the nominator said, 'merely being nominated for some awards' may be a signifier of notability. Criterion 1 of WP:ANYBIO says: [t]he person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. Even though she has not won any of them, three nominations to such awards are in the article and can be verified. Of course, not everyone who's been nominated for notable awards is automatically notable; but, as Possibly has pointed out, the subject has done more than just the nominations. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) I’m skeptical about the Prince Pierre de Monaco Prize nomination claim, for the simple reason that, per the official site, the award was not granted in 2015, despite what the blurb asserts.
 * 2) I’m also not convinced that the Kuryokhin Art Award is particularly significant, given the lack of credible evidence to back that up.
 * 3) Thus, being one of six nominees — not even a finalist — for a Kandinsky Prize is a rather slender notability claim. Also, she received just one nomination apiece, thus not fulfilling the “nominated for such an award several times ” requirement.
 * 4) As for the claim that “the subject has done more than just the nominations”: where exactly are the “multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject” to demonstrate that? — Biruitorul Talk 03:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per WP:ANYBIO # 1, unless it is established that these nominations are not real. JBchrch   talk  10:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As I noted in my previous reply: there is good reason to believe the Monaco nomination didn’t happen; there is also good reason to cast doubt on the importance of the Kuryokhin award; and finally, even the most generous interpretation of the criterion runs up against its clear wording: “nominated for such an award several times ”. At most, the subject received one nomination for each award, thus not fulfilling the requirement. — Biruitorul Talk 13:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * May I add that this is your reading of the criterion? The text simply says "such an award" not "the same award". The text is phrased ambiguously and both readings are possible. To me, this is one of the reasons why AfD works on consensus in order to gauge how different editors view these criteria. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * While we probe the fine points of definitions, let’s note that “several” is defined as “more than two but fewer than many”. We have two clearly established nominations (of which one may not qualify as a “well-known and significant award”), so even by your more generous interpretation, the subject still does not pass WP:ANYBIO, point 1. — Biruitorul Talk 16:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There are, in fact, several definitions, including "more than one." pburka (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * “Several” typically refers to around 3-5. As the Merriam-Webster style guide makes clear, the word can conceivably mean “two”, but in modern English commonly means “three or more”.
 * At any rate, looking at the bigger picture, “lost out on two awards, one of which isn’t even attested as being ‘well-known and significant’”, isn’t exactly convincing evidence of notability. — Biruitorul Talk 23:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. Ok so do we have any reliable source for the Prince Pierre de Monaco Prize? I have tried to locate one but did not find any that was independent from the subject, including on the website of the Fondation Price Pierre de Monaco. JBchrch   talk  19:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The short answer would appear to be no. Given that it’s the most authoritative source on the topic, I too checked the official site for the Monaco prize, reviewing all nominees as far back as 2008, the earliest available date. Apostol isn’t there. - Biruitorul Talk 04:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The website does not seem to show any nominees for the prize she may have been nominated for, i.e. The Prize for a critical essay on contemporary art, so the short answer appears to be it remains unclear based on the information available from the website. Beccaynr (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * But this means that this information is not verifiable right? JBchrch   talk  19:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The nomination currently does not appear to be verified, but this is not because all of the nominee information is available to be reviewed on the official website, and Apostol is not listed. None of the nominees are listed for the award she may have been nominated for, so we are not able to use the website to verify whether she was nominated. Beccaynr (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This discussion begs a second question: what (impartial) indication do we have that the “Fondation Prince Pierre de Monaco Prize for a critical essay on contemporary art” counts as a “well-known and significant award or honor”, as contemplated by WP:ANYBIO? — Biruitorul Talk 21:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No independent source validates the Monaco prize, and it is not listed on their website. I have removed it from the article. --- Possibly &#9742; 23:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, at minimum per WP:BASIC; I noted WP:SECONDARY sources at the top of this discussion, and recognition from institutions such as the Kandinsky Prize for "Scholarly work. History and theory of contemporary art," with a biography published on their website is not a "loss," and instead seems to further support her notability. WP:ANYBIO is clear that nominations for a well-known and significant award or honor can support notability, which makes sense due to the WP:SECONDARY commentary provided by the honor to be nominated. The Kadinsky Prize has coverage in RS that supports its significance, e.g. BBC ("designed to be Russia's answer to the Turner Prize"), NYT ("Russia’s most prestigious contemporary-art award"), Reuters ("Russia’s top modern art award"), so even if WP:ANYBIO notability is not fully supported at this time, her being not just nominated but also shortlisted for this award appears to support her notability when combined with other sources, including the GBooks references noted by Possibly above. Beccaynr (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, per the additional arguments provided above.  --- Possibly &#9742; 22:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2021 (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.