Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kasia Babis (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 keep. Daniel (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Kasia Babis
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article author failed to substantiate WP:N for this page. I tried googling around but the person in question seems to have no notable achievements. In one election six years ago she received below 1000 votes. She also runs a YouTube channel with fewer than 50,000 subscribers. Zero notability, article for deletion. LordParsifal (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 30.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 16:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep I see a few sources (e.g. this, this and this) that seem like significant coverage. The article was also created by the Polish-speaking sysop . I would tend to trust them on their gauging of notability here, both for speaking Polish and for being a sysop, who are presumably familiar with WP:N.  --- Possibly &#9742; 18:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Possibly, and I have added support for WP:CREATIVE notability based on reviews of her recent work as an illustrator/graphic novel artist, i.e. Guantánamo Voices: True Accounts from the World’s Most Infamous Prison and Re:Constitutions. Beccaynr (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete It's her job as an illustrator to make and publish illustrations. Should we feature every illustrator and graphic artist on Wikipedia? HuffPost is not a reliable and reputable source, the two other sources are minor articles in minor local Polish websites that I also think are not reputable sources. And again, bravo for posting an illustration to New Yorker, but that's just her job as an illustrator. Not encyclopedic, not notable. In fact, if you make a web traffic analysis, you'd see that it's her YouTube content that generates the most traffic. But even then, her YouTube channel does not have even 50,000 subscribers, standing at just below 37 thousand. This person is beyond non-notable. As a matter of fact—I am also Polish. LordParsifal (talk) 22:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Striking delete as this user is also the nominator. You don't get to !vote twice. pburka (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * By the way—it's crucial to inform that per WP:N, trivial mentions do not merit notability. Notability can be expressed through wide public attention, political importance or a variety of orders, awards or titles.

This person has not scored a single veritable achievement. This person's closest approach to notability was being nominated for a municipal literary award, but subsequently failing at acquiring that award and falling out of the process. So as it stands now—zero achievements, zero notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordParsifal  (talk • contribs) 22:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment per WP:AFDFORMAT, Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this, and the sources I added about her recent works support her notability per WP:CREATIVE. Beccaynr (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment You kind of played yourself—because exactly per WP:CREATIVE she is shown to be non-notable. She does not fit any of the 4 given criteria. Having your work (which you produce as part of your job) reviewed does not fit any of the 4 criteria. Your belief that this gives notability is false. WP:BIO is very clear on what notability is—with emphasis on the word "significant." This person has not attracted any significant attention not just in the form of pure traffic, but also soft attention (reputation, coverage) and hard attention (awards, adaptations etc). There really is just nothing significant there. That's all there is to it. LordParsifal (talk) 23:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I apologize if I have been unclear. Per WP:CREATIVE#3, she has played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work [has] been the primary subject [...] of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. For example, she contributed art to Guantánamo Voices: True Accounts from the World’s Most Infamous Prison,  which was named one of the The Best Graphic Novels of 2020 by The New York Times, one of the 2021 Great Graphic Novels for Teens by the Young Adult Library Services Association (YALSA), and awarded the 2021 Lynd Ward Graphic Novel Prize from the Penn State University Libraries. In addition, she illustrated the Re:Constitutions graphic novel written by Beka Feathers, and according to Publishers Weekly, "this educational comics guidebook to constitutions takes on a commendable international scope", and "Helped along by Babis’s charming if somewhat overly smiley character drawings, the team goes beyond the basics to tackle more substantial examples (such as how Rwanda’s 2003 constitution required 30% of government decision-making bodies to comprise women) and urgent particulars (“the constitution is only as strong as the people who use it”)," and it is being released in July 2021. So in addition to the other sources in the article, it appears that her notability is sufficiently supported. Beccaynr (talk) 23:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment updated with additional sources and information. Beccaynr (talk) 00:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Yeah I understand the criteria correctly, including #3. She does not meet any of the criteria. In #3 it explicitly says played a major role. Did she play a major role? The BOOK was spearheaded by Sarah Mirk who has conducted interviews, compiled all the information and wrote the entire text (besides the introduction which was written by Omar el Akkad). The text is adorned with illustrations by 12 different artists. The book is divided into 14 sections with the first two sections illustrated by one Nomi Kane (who does not have a Wikipedia page) and the last section being a collection of art made by a Guantanamo prisoner. All other artists illustrated one section each. One other illustrator that got highlighted by the Brooklyn Public Library (here: https://www.bklynlibrary.org/item?b=12359307) is Gerardo Alba. Also no Wikipedia page. Actually, all illustrators besides, who woulda thunk—Kasia Babis—have got no Wikipedia page of their own. Here we come to the conclusion—the major role was played only by Sarah Mirk, while this person called Kasia Babis has no business being featured on Wikipedia. All the illustrators were commissioned decorators and neither one of them in particular propelled the book to a recognizable status. Given the way things are, Kasia Babis (alongside other illustrators) merely deserves a passing mention on the Wikipedia page of the book, and not an entirely standalone article of her own. Oh wait, the book doesn't have a Wikipedia article of its own either. Only Sarah Mirk does.
 * Anyway. I hope this concludes the topic and closes speculation whether the person in question fits any criterium or not. Last but not least: there are plenty of artists in this world, many of whom have illustrated very important works. But on Wikipedia, illustrators tend to be featured only when their work is featured in very important pieces of culture, and when it's extraordinarily recognized as valuable and indispensable—like for example Steele Savage of Edith Hamilton's "Mythology" fame. And not some second-rate illustrator of second-rate books. LordParsifal (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - the first deletion nomination was kept per these sources, none of which have been mentioned here or used in the article: The Post Italiano, The Canary, Tanzania's Daily News, Bustle, Metro Argento Surfer (talk) 13:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There's also The Nation, which lists her as a distinguished cartoonist of her generation. It's a passing mention, but it's still something. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the first deletion nomination was conducted inadequately on a technical level. Trivial mentions do not merit notability, per WP:BIO a person is notable if there is anything, even one thing, extraordinary or significant about the person. This extraordinariness or significance Wikipedia came to quantify as any sort of widespread public attention or, more solidly, accolades, prizes, awards, titles. This person failed to acquire even a municipal award. She is beyond non-notable. I do not understand why there is still any discussion. She also doesn't meet any of the precise criteria laid out in WP:BIO more precisely WP:CREATIVE LordParsifal (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think everyone here is aware of your opinion. You don't need to WP:BLUDGEON every person who comments. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Contrary to the claims above, WP:BIO does not require "anything, even one thing, extraordinary or significant about the person." Instead, a person is notable if they've been the subject of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Babis clearly has been. pburka (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment She has not been the subject of significant coverage. Trivial mentions do not count as notability. Neither do mentions in a few minor articles with 0 comments and shares. I would be pleased if you shared me just one criterium from WP:BIO or WP:N that she meets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordParsifal (talk • contribs) 15:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BASIC, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, and Argento Surfer has also identified additional sources with WP:SECONDARY commentary, such as The Nation, noted above, and articles including Bustle and Metro, which are entirely focused on her work. Beccaynr (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BASIC indeed—trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. The footnote given is also a useful guideline. Additionally, the sources given do not meet the criteria set by WP:GNG. These articles neither discuss the person of Kasia Babis in depth, nor do they discuss her at all, they are just pop-magazine content dumps and as such they're trivial. I would be really bewildered if this article was left to stay here. LordParsifal (talk) 12:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a typical example of why WP:BLUDGEONing is counter-productive: "While they may have some very valid points, they get lost due to the dominant behavior and others are less likely to consider their viewpoints because of their behavior." pburka (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * keep as has been stated by numerous users here, there is coverage in many sources, more than enough in this discussion alone to warrant notably—blindlynx (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * keep meets GNG per the sources noted in this discussion. Theredproject (talk) 00:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * keep coverage in multiple reliable sources, as listed here, meets WP:GNG Niftysquirrel (talk) 14:38, 7 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.