Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katrin Alvarez


 * 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 Delete. Although numerically this is only leaning towards deletion, those arguing for deletion have offered more detailed and specific rationales than the other side, and these haven't been rebutted.  Hut 8.5  21:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Katrin Alvarez

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The exhibitions and awards are either pay-to-play or not notable. I've spent much of the past week doing a deep dive into this world of pay-to-play exhibitions, and have coalesced some of that info, including links to evidence of exorbitant fees here: User:Theredproject/Predatory Exhibitions and Vanity Galleries. Below I have sorted all the claims in the article into categories to clarify that they are pay-to-play or not notable:

These are all Pay-to-play
 * In 2012, she won a gold medal ( La Grande Médaille d'Or ) at the Monde de la Culture and the Cannes Azure Exhibition,
 * and a Leonardo painting prize at the Chianciano art award. [18]
 * In 2013, she won first prize for Applied Arts in the Chianciano Biennial Leonardo Award. [19]
 * In 2015, Alvarez won the Winsor & Newton Prize from the Palm Art Award. [20]
 * In 2018, Art Tour International magazine declared her Artist of the Year (for 2017) and made her one of its "ATIM Top 60 Masters". [21]
 * In 2004, she had her first exhibition at the Agora Gallery, a contemporary fine arts gallery in Chelsea, Manhattan.
 * the same year, she is exhibiting at the International Biennial Artists Exhibition, Miami; [9]
 * at the Chianciano Art Museum, Italy; [9] [11]
 * In 2017 she exhibited at the London Biennale,
 * The German psychiatrist Hans-Thomas Gosciniak has written that "they do not try to explain, educate or teach, they do not carry them to a mission." The ripples felt through the individual may expand the horizon of feelings and dreams, clearing memories from debris, thus opening a new way to find one's deeper and inner self ". [22] -- ArtisSpectrum Magazine is Agora Gallery
 * Maureen Flynn, writing for the Agora Gallery, describes Alvarez's figures as often doll-like, sleep-walkers "cut off somewhat self-protectively from their own benumbed emotions, as they traverse desolate landscapes". [5] Flynn finds the portraits of women in the foreground of the painting "luminous, clear-eyed", [5] but other figures in the background can be ghostly, recalling Edvard Munch 's The Scream, or ominous, "suggesting an allegory of pedophilia. " [5] In Flynn's view, Alvarez may be on a mission to teach the viewer "to look unflinchingly at the demons that we all harbor"; if so, she writes, "well, no one does it better." [5]
 * Victoria Ludwig, writing about the Chianciano Biennale for Art News Report, described Alvarez as the viewer into a world that blurs the line between the real and the surreal. In her view, Alvarez had been influenced by Hieronymus Bosch , Albrecht Dürer and Rembrandt , while her interest in poetry and psychology connected her surrealism with expressionism . [11]

These are non notable and/or unverifiable exhibitions:
 * In 2007, Alvarez won the Federation of Canadian painters' Allan Edwards Award for her painting Exorcism . [15]
 * In 2011, she received the Vivid Arts Network's "Onore alla Creativá et l'eccelenza nella arti" award at the Castello Estense, Ferrara, [16] and placed in the Artrom Gallery's "The Spiritual Essence of Art" for her painting In the Beginning there was Woman . [17]
 * In 1981, she was an exhibition of a series of miniature paintings framed in pure gold, silver, and jewelry in the gallery Art and Psyche in Cologne . [4]
 * In 2013, she showed eight paintings at the "Fantastic Realism" exhibition at the LuminArté gallery, Dallas, [9] and she exhibited there again the following year; [10]

This is a print on demand book only held in 12 libraries in the world, all in germany:
 * [5] In 2008, Alvarez was included in Gerhard Habarta's "Encyclopedia of Fantastic Artists". [6]

We are left with the following:
 * In 2012, she was an exhibition entitled "Transition realms - paintings and word paintings from the inner world" at the Phantastenmuseum ( de ) in the Palais Palffy, Vienna, Austria. [7]
 * Their website on the Palais Palffy, which seems like a building that you can rent space, links to the official website... a facebook page That FB page links to... a squatted wordpress page
 * In 2016, Alvarez gave an exhibition of paintings on the theme of child abuse Entitled "Memorandum in Pictures" at the gallery Beck in Homburg, Germany. [12] [13]
 * Which is unclear if it is pay-to-play (talks about "coaching") but at the very least is not notable. http://www.galerie-monika-beck.de/ http://www.comebeck.com/comebeck-coaching.htm
 * Ashley Knight, in ArtDistricts magazine, wrote that Alvarez uses "a surrealist language that reveals the conflicts, fears and anxiety of our contemporary society." [9]
 * May be legit, but isn't notable
 * A series of art fairs that we don't have any details on, and which wouldn't establish notabilty anyway
 * and at the Beijing Art Expo 2013, China. [9]
 * [14] and at art fairs and galleries in Paris, Miami, Beijing, and Vienna. [1]

Hence, I feel confident saying we should delete this article. Theredproject (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - she has been discussed in reliable sources, and she has won enough independently-awarded prizes in different countries over a long enough career to pass the GNG threshold easily enough. Obviously she's not Picasso, but her notability is really not in doubt. I don't begin to understand the reason why anyone should choose to spend a week of their life trying to get this article deleted, as documented above, but I do think it mistaken, which is all that matters. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 18:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 18:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You have misinterpreted my words: I have not spent the last week trying to get this article deleted, I've spent some time over the last week doing research into pay-to-play exhibitions in the arts. Theredproject (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it, but you know what I think. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. We don't accept vanity presses as reliable sources, and these vanity galleries, and their assiociated fake biennales, fake awards and pay-to-publish magazines are no different. Anyone can get exhibited there, written about or given an award, as long as thy're willing to pay. That we would compromise ourselves by providing these frauds with a cloak of respectability is unconscionable. Vexations (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep agree with rationale and notability guidelines. Hmlarson (talk) 05:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. I see no major prizes, no notable first-rateexibition, no works in museums, and no substantial criticism--just items published by the galleries that show her work . We need more articles on the many truly notable women artists.  DGG ( talk ) 06:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What the rule says:People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards.


 * Artists: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. 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. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
 * The rule, however, also says: Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included. A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. It's also interesting that the native- (i.e. German-) language Wikipedia does not cite one single source. Taking into account the numerous exhibitions and mentions in various sources in the English-Wikipedia article, I cannot see light yet. -The Gnome (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure what you mean here by "I cannot see light yet" - do you mean you are undecided? You mention the "the numerous exhibitions and mentions in various sources in the English-Wikipedia article" - can you indicate which of these sources you think are WP:RS? --Theredproject (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * How do you determine that the awards listed in the article are "pay-to-play"? (Which I take it to mean that they're vanity awards, given to whomever forks up.) Take, for example, Art Tour International magazine declaring the subject "Artist of the Year" (for 2017). What's the play there? -The Gnome (talk) 07:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi I have the link to the research posted above. I just updated it with some ATIM specific info. You can see that diff here Special:Diff/838843127/840732778, which includes links to sales documents where they specify the amount you have to pay to be included in the magazine, and in one case specify that everyone who pays, gets a specific award. I hope that clarifies the degree to which these are Vanity publications and exhibitions. See also Vanity and predatory publishing, Vanity gallery, and Vanity award --Theredproject (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a vanity affair. If the rest of the cited sources about the subject's awards are of the same caliber, it's all trash. -The Gnome (talk) 21:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Two Questions for and : 1. Which of these sources do you think are Significant, Independent, Reliable and Secondary? 2. Given the presence of pay-to-play/vanity exhibitions in this article, which of the exhibitions and awards do you think are significant and substantial? --Theredproject (talk) 02:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Clearly satisfies requirements of GNG. EnPassant (talk) 18:47, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * same question as above: 1. Which of these sources do you think are Significant, Independent, Reliable and Secondary? 2. Given the presence of pay-to-play/vanity exhibitions in this article, which of the exhibitions and awards do you think are significant and substantial? Theredproject (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per Theredproject's reasoning, which is detailed and specific, unlike all the "keep" assertions. -The Gnome (talk) 21:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete due to the numerous pay-to-play career promotion events, and the lack of independent recognition followed by independent reporting in reliable sources.104.163.159.237 (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete After examining the prizes won, I conclude most are vanity affairs and schemes designed for money making, rather than artistic recognition. There's a plethora of sources but, on examination, they turn out to be mostly duds. -The Gnome (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2018 (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.