Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriela Trzebinski


 * 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. One two three... 10:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Gabriela Trzebinski

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

Very little assertion of notability, does not appear to meet WP:Creative. Creation of single-purpose acct.  Litho  derm  17:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  — Litho  derm  17:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Keep Several group exhibitions in Houston, including one at the University of Houston's Blaffer Gallery, but no solo shows. The group shows have got some coverage in the Houston Press , but the artist isn't covered in any depth individually. --Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Her web site lists: "Selected Solo Exhibitions: George Adams Gallery, New York, USA, 2006. Jan Murphy Gallery, Brisbane, Australia, 2003. The French Cultural Center, Nairobi, Kenya, 2001. Jan Murphy Gallery, Brisbane, Australia, 2000. The Rebecca Hossack Gallery, London, UK, 2000. Solo Exhibitions USA, Kenya, 1998. African Heritage, Nairobi, Kenya, 1989." I don't see any reason to doubt this. I've posted additional refs at Talk:Gabriela Trzebinski.  Ty  12:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep The artist is the subject of an extensive review on Artcritical (which is a good enough source for other articles:, ).  If some outside sources could be found to verify her background and basic facts about her, it would be a much better article, but as it is, I think it's decent enough to be called a stub.  While failing strict interpretation of WP:ARTIST, I think this one is close enough to the edge to warrant leaving it alone, though barely.  Livitup (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * One in-depth article certainly doesn't constitute significant in-depth coverage. Drawn Some (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * article by collector, not independent. Enki H. (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I am concerned about a couple of things: even if we were to accept without question that she is notable, the article still needs to be verifiable, it is a BLP.  And I have some concerns about that because as far as I know there is no "Museum of Modern Art" in Toronto that could be holding her work as the article claims. So I question the reliability of the article in general so this article really needs independent reliable sources for verification at this point.  Also I want to point out that information from a gallery that showed her work is not independent.  A museum would be debatable as independent if it merely exhibited her work temporarily.  If her work is actually held in the permanent collections of several notable museums she herself would be notable. Drawn Some (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, does not seem ready for an encyclopedia, 1 review or not...Modernist (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - changed per additional information and work by User:Tyrenius at Talk:Gabriela Trzebinski...Modernist (talk) 12:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep – I believe there is just enough information to qualify under creative to at least have a stub, as shown here . I’ll go through and clean-up the fluff.  Thanks.  ShoesssS Talk 21:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm. There's really no such thing as "at least a stub". Enki H. (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Delete. No Few secondary sources apparent. The article at http://artcritical.com/peterson/GPTrzebinski.htm is in-depth, but written by a collector of hers . The other material I found is written by curators - not independent sources . No "Museum of Modern Art" in Toronto exists, no mention of Trzebinski at "Everard-Read Gallery in Johannesburg", no Website for Richard Salmon in London to check claim, not in list of artists of "George Adams Gallery", not in list of artists of "Rebecca Hossack Gallery" ... fails WP:BIO, WP:CREATIVE and is full of false claims need to be addressed. Enki H. (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Enki H. (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See my post below and check out Talk:Gabriela Trzebinski. There are references where she has been listed as an artist at "George Adams Gallery" and "Rebecca Hossack Gallery" (the latter including by The Times). She may not be with them now. I dare say some of the other claims could also be verified.  Peterson's article is valid: he is independent, not an agent of the artist; additionally, artcritical has editorial control and therefore endorses his text and takes responsibility for publishing it. She is listed at Smithsonian Institution Libraries, Archive of African Artists - National Museum of African Art Library.  Ty  12:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I have put the references on Talk:Gabriela Trzebinski. They date from 1995 with exhibitions and coverage in US and UK.  Cumulatively they satisfy WP:N and provide plenty of material to write an article.  Ty  12:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I see many trivial mentions, many of them obliquely in the context of family, and several gallery exhibitions but I still don't see the information verified and there is at least one untruth in the article. Many trivial mentions don't equal in-depth coverage and being shown in galleries and even museums is not the same as being in the permanent collection. Fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE and contains false information.  Drawn Some (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have reread the Peterson article and I think it raises an interesting question. It is obvious that as a declared collector of her works he is in a COI position. It is equally obvious that he takes a strongly positive POV. Yet his arguments are a credible interpretation of the work. If we consider that article, I would agree that the guidelines of WP:BIO are fulfilled. If we discount that article, then, despite the many references that Ty has discovered, I tend with Drawn Some that the coverage is thin and does not reflect a notable appreciation of the contents and qualities of her work. Since I myself agree in part with Peterson, I could invoke the core of WP:N - simply: "worthy of notice". But not based on a WP:RS, rather based on a gut feeling (call that POV, or call it OR, or just the bias that is unavoidable in any case, simply because we care enough to edit). I'm thinking out loud here, but I don't yet see a clear (and equitable) line for this AfD. Enki H. (talk) 04:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Guidelines are quite clear that independent reliable sources must be used to establish notability. Once notability has been established then non-independent sources may be used for verification.  Drawn Some (talk) 11:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) COI applies to editors, not sources, as does POV. If a source is valid per WP:RS then per WP:NPOV we represent its position. It's not our place to judge it: that is OR. The home page of artcritical shows it has editorial control of content, and it is therefore an acceptable source. It is independent of the subject, as is the writer, who is not acting under her instruction.  There is conflation in this debate of trivial with short. Per WP:GNG " 'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive."  There are enough sources that fulfil these criteria, where the essential element, namely her work, has detailed information to use. As such, it is not trivial.  Subjects have to be considered in their own terms: contemporary art has a small allocation in the media compared with other fields such as sport, and only a small percentage of art shows receive reviews at all, so when there is coverage it is proportionately more significant than it might be for a different field. Her listing at Smithsonian Institution  Libraries as one of only 79 contemporary artists for Kenya is an affirmation of her notability.  Ty  14:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Right. Enki H. (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment changed !vote to keep. The artcritical essay is the only published source that deals with the subject in depth. The criteria for inclusion in the Smithsonian list aren't stated . But it's the Maryland artist files that swings it for me - a glance at the list confirms that the emphasis is on internationally significant artists .--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:39, 16 June 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.