Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karina Smigla-Bobinski


 * 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. Despite the nominator withdrawing in a comment at the end of the discussion, no consensus for a particular outcome has occurred herein. North America1000 07:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Post-closure comment added per this discussion: I was going to change my 'weak delete' stance to 'keep' based on the convincing sources added at the end of the discussion, prior to the comment withdrawing this article from deletion nomination, but I came back to the discussion after it had already been closed. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Karina Smigla-Bobinski

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Let's set aside this clearly a promotional entry written by a person with WP:COI (red flags: User:Paula perissinotto, and mentioned by subject at : "curators Ricardo Barreto and Paula Perissinotto ", also as usual - WP:SPA). The main problem is that the coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (biographies) requirement. I tried looking for sources, but they all seem low key. There is no in-depth coverage of her, through there are plenty mentions in passing, but much of it is blogs, etc. She seem not to have won any awards, or received coverage which would make her pas WP:ARTIST. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 18:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. It seems that the references aren't really independent of the subject; predominantly they are coverage by galleries where this artist has exhibited. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - very poor sourcing for a biography of a living person. All the red links makes be suspicious. Bearian (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Upon reviewing the sources after the last major revision (thank you, anonymous IP, for doing that), I'm starting to lean away from 'delete' so I have changed it to 'weak delete'. Per my comment below, there is some significant independent coverage of this artist's exhibits, but not of the artist herself. So this is looking borderline, possibly WP:TOSOON. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep this is a notable artist who has had lots of prominent gigs and recignition. The artilce itslef is terrible and needs to be rewritten, but that has nothing to do with notability. I'll see what refs I can dig up. COI has no particular bearing on deletion. it's notability that counts, and it is here in this article. 104.163.150.250 (talk) 08:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Update I have cleaned up the article, and converted all refs to inline. She is notable without a doubt, on the basis of being widely cited in good quality sources. It took some time also to check the references in German, Spanish and Polish and put them in their proper place. I deleted two entire secitons that were just uncited lists of accomplishments. I will tag the article for COI, as it was obviously an involved person who created it. Pinging @Bearian @Anachronist @Piotrus to have a second look at it, now that it's readable. 104.163.150.250 (talk) 09:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your cleanup. Could you list here and discuss the sources you consider best, and you think justify her inclusion in the encyclopedia? Personally I find that the best sources are the articles in some museums that she had her exhibitions at, namely de:LWL-Industriemuseum and Museum of Transitory Art ; through none of those is major enough for anyone to bother with English Wikipedia article yet; neither does Fact (charity)  seems significant.  --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  15:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've spent over an hour, maybe two, improving the article. Your nomination is unfortunately weak and if you look at the places she has shown, and some WP:BEFORE would see that there are lots of sources. 104.163.150.250 (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I am struggling to find in that list of sources, any that are significant, reliable, and independent. I've gone through them all. After removing from consideration the blogs (not reliable), trivial mentions, and articles by museums and exhibitions (not independent of the subject), I am left with only three that may be reliable and independent: Star2, We Make $$, and germany.info &mdash; but those articles aren't about the artist, they are about specific exhibits. I'm willing to strike my delete vote above, but I must say I am not seeing anything yet that qualifies as significant, reliable, and independent coverage of this artist. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * That's fine, delete it then. I am begining to see Wikipedia as a huge sexist machine, as widely reported in the press. 104.163.150.250 (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If it makes you feel any better, you can help find articles on non-notable male artists and nominate them for deletion. I would be happy to help. You can also log in and ask for this article to e moved to your sandbox. As I noted, this may be the case of WP:TOOSOON: the artist may not be notable now, but could become more notable in few years and your work could be improved and restored at that time. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 19:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What, exactly, is "sexist" about Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion? Don't blame Wikipedia for an artist's failure to meet the criteria; and that applies regardless of the artist's gender. And besides, I've deleted many articles about artists (mostly musical artists) and nearly 100% of them have been about male artists. What does that tell you? ~Anachronist (talk)
 * Delete as apparently no museum collections or major art reviews which is what would've established notability. SwisterTwister   talk  23:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plenty of reliable sources. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 09:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Please state which ones affect establishing notability as our notability criteria for artists in having museum collections or major art reviews, and these are stated as so. SwisterTwister   talk  19:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Artists such as Karina Smigla-Bobinski create works that are often not perceived as "collectible" by museums & institutions because of their ephemeral, dematerialized or performative nature. These practices, like Conceptual art of past decades, may disqualify (or ghettoize?) certain artists from traditional encyclopedic standards of notability. One hopes in the near future that the criteria for artists' notability are revised in relation to 21st century practices. There are many art worlds; not solely the institutional art world of museum collections and commercial galleries, which are biased towards promoting and collecting male artists due to the subjective economics of collectability based on "market value," and political bodies such as boards of trustees private interests. and others, please click on NEWS above - and you will see that there are credible news sources reviewing her work: Le Journal de Quebec Business Insider, Vancouver Sun, E-Flux, Calgary Herald, and others. Click on BOOKS and also on SCHOLAR above, and see how many books and journal entries there are on this artist before dismissing their notability. Netherzone (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Collectible is not necessary. Those ephemeral works can still generate media coverage, and artists can still be written about by reliable media. If they are not, however, than it is not Wikipedia's place to promote them. Also, I've taken a look at and I am not impressed: 1st, her own conference paper, 2nd and 3rd, passing coverage of 1-2 sentences in each paper (2 captions in, 1 sentence in ), others don't seem to have more. As far as scholar, at least, I don't see anything approaching significance. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  00:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * If you believe Wikipedia's current notability standards for artists are insufficient, then by all means open up a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) and gain consensus for a change. AFD is not the venue for discussing the merits of our notability guidelines. Our job here is to determine whether a subject meets current inclusion criteria as they stand. If the guideline changes to cause artists like this to merit Wikipedia articles more easily, then this article can always be restored if it has been deleted prior to the guideline changing. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Insufficient substance to pass WP:Artist or WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC).
 * Keep - The Acid Test Artmegeddon: WP:Artist
 * The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. Pass.
 * The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. Pass. Sole example of an artist creating a large-scale, inflatable, participatory, low-impact, drawing machine.
 * The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Pass – see below.
 * The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument. Fail as per genre and intent of ephemeral, performative, participatory new media art. (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition. Pass as per numerous international exhibitions at the Venice Bienalle; Singapore Art Museum; Nottingham Castle Museum & Art Gallery, UK; Suwon IPARK Museum of Art, South Korea; BOZAR Centre for Fine Arts, Brussels; ZiF Center for Interdisciplinary Research Bielefeld University's Institute for Advanced Study; Grande Halle de la Villette (Museum) Paris; Kunsthalle an Hamburger Platz, Berlin; CURRENTS Festival - 6th Santa Fe International New Media Festival in Silicon Valley; WRO Media Art Biennale in Wroclaw (Poland); F I L E - Electronic Language International Festival, Curitiba, Brazil; Microwave International New Media Arts Festival Hong Kong; Museum of Transitory Art Ljubljana / Slovenia Supported by the Culture Programme of the European Union; PDC Participatory Design Conference in Namibia; ROBOT – Digital Paths Into Music And Arts – Int. Festival, Bologna / Italy; MSGSÜ Tophane-i Amire Culture and Arts Center in Istanbul / Turkey; Center of Applied Art Center of Innovations; Garage Center for Contemporary Culture, Moscow, Russia; AltArt Foundation Romania; 2012 ZERO1 BIENNIAL; FACT Foundation for Art and Creative Technology, Liverpool; among others. (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Pass as per publications in: WIRED Magazine, The Atlantic (magazine); TANZ Magazin; Imperica Media And Arts Magazine; Le Journal de Quebec; Business Insider; Vancouver Sun; E-Flux; Calgary Herald; Emiliano Causa > book “Invasión Generativa” - “Generative Invasion”; Neural (Journal) #47 "Art in the age of neurological reproduction", OVERS!ZE - The Mega Art & Installations (Book); The New Collectors Book; BBC News Channel. In good faith, people, and I know it's a primary source, but do see the links on the artist’s website: http://smigla-bobinski.com/english/about/Bibliography.html and CV: http://smigla-bobinski.com/english/about/cv.html Netherzone (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sadly, I have to disagree. Your first two passes are uncited, for the third one, well, we discussed the sources above and there is no consensus they are sufficient. Also... where is the Wired coverage? The Atlantic? Links, please. The "a substantial part of a significant exhibition" is open to debate; most of those exhibitions are uncited, but can be AFGed. But were they really substantial, and were they significant? Personally I feel that for that we need to have a source other than artist CV or institution news. Show me a major publication like Wired/Atlantic, indeed, which devotes more than 1-2 sentences to her work, and then we will have something. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I, too, would like to see the coverage in Wired or The Atlantic. That would definitely make this a keeper and I would change my !vote above.
 * However, I am also thinking that this may be passing criterion 4.b. of WP:NARTIST. Now that the article has been massively trimmed and cleaned up by an anonymous IP (great improvement), it's now easier to see what might be notable, or not. In particular, in the list of exhibitions, we have several redlinks or no-links, suggesting that these may not yet be notable. But we also have some notable museums/exhibitions. Of those, most don't have any citations. But I see that two of them do: Foundation for Art and Creative Technology and Electronic Language International Festival. This looks like it might meet the "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition" criterion in WP:NARTIST 4.b. What do you think? ~Anachronist (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The Electronic Language International Festival seem to have notability issue itself, but seems notable (coverage in and few more sources). The question is, however - how are we to judge whether her work "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition" held there? She did get two pages of coverage at the institution, so the substantial part is ok, but what makes a "significant" exhibition? I tried looking for any news coverage of an exhibition, but failed to find it. problem we are facing is that in the modern world, almost any artist will get some exhibitions somewhere, and a mention on associated webpages. How to measure it, I am not sure. This is not an area I feel I am an expert. I have my own set of standards, which generally ask for at least a paragraph description of the artist - a short bio - published by an institution that is not associated with the artist. The problem with many low-key exhibitions are that they may be a for-profit venues, where the artist is trying to sell their works, splitting profits with the gallery/etc., and they are doing pure PR. Again, how to distinguish between an non-profit, real museum/public benefit exhiibition, and a shop masquarading as one, and even whether this is the best distinction, I am not prepared to say. But if the gallery doesn't apear to be major, even if it has a Wikipedia article, I don't consider it automatically meeting 4b. I hope the above clarifies why. Anyway, I feel that this articles is on the wrong side of borderline, with the sources we have found so far. If we could hear from an expert, a professor specializing in modern art in UK... ah, vane hope. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  21:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. As explained above.--Ipigott (talk) 09:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I wish we had a bot which would auto-strike such useless comments as WP:PERX. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The reviewing admin will typically discount simple votes that fail to address any of the arguments. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. I certainly do not agree with that my comment is "useless". I had encouraged Netherzone and others to look into this more carefully. In the light of the comprehensive examination which has now resulted, I am entitled to agree to the conclusion of the analysis. It would be silly to repeat the entire section as a basis for my "keep".--Ipigott (talk) 12:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? You have not participated in the discussion until your vote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  13:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "I see the discussion is veering towards delete which I find rather surprising given the extensive number of exhibitions, publications, interviews, etc., posted here. I think someone needs to go through these more carefully as quite a number appear to me to be valid secondary sources. It would also be useful to know whether any of the artworks are on permanent display. There must also be Polish news sources, etc." This was posted here on 9 February and obviously had the desired effect.--Ipigott (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, you commented somewhere else. Well, that's great, and yes, I am sure it helped, but you can't expect others to follow (stalk...) your comments to know that. From the perspective of those not following that other forum and not aware of that context, your vote here was pretty meaningless. I do appreciate your help, but next time, linking such a diff and saying "per my prior comments elsewhere" would make things more clear.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Links to The Atlantic & WIRED. Above is an appeal for an "expert, a professor specializing in modern art in the UK", while I am not in the UK, I am a professor of art and art history in the U.S. for 30 years, if that makes any difference. The Atlantic https://www.theatlantic.com/video/archive/2011/08/analogue-is-the-new-digital-in-ada--and-interactive-installation/469725/ WIRED.CO.UK Via Wayback Machine – there are 16 archived captures: https://web.archive.org/web/20120119062626/http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-07/27/ada-charcoal-sphere - Original link (down): http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-07/27/ada-charcoal-sphere If I am permitted to vote in this discussion, based on my several comments above, Keep. Moving my vote to keep up to my main argument. You're welcome.Netherzone (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing nomination. Wired and Atlantic links that Netherzone found are sufficient to establish NARTIST. It is always a pleasure to see a real expert take part in those discussions (and yes, US will do :>). Thank you! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:27, 11 February 2017 (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.