Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krysia Nowak


 * 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator; sole delete !vote also withdrawn. (non-admin closure) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Krysia Nowak

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The has issues with WP:NBIO. It does have sourcing that strongly suggests notability, but when I started to dig into the sourcing, verification became a major issue. Let's take a look. 1) "Bowen, Denis (18 April 1975). "Krysia Nowak". Arts Review. 27 (8): 216." looks nice - like an academic journal - but I cannot verify such an article exists, all google hits are Wikipedia or its mirrors. The publications is so niche I cannot even locate its digitized table of contents online to confirm that this article exists. Same for "Bush, Aubrey (1 November 1974). "Margaret C Topham and Krysia D Nowak". Arts Review. 26 (22): 657." The only digital source that mentions this article is our article here. Strike two. 2) The World Who's Who of Women seems nice... the article cites the 1984 edition, which at least does exist. Google Books has snippet view for a newer, 1995 edition, and returns zero search results for her name from the book contents :( Strike three. 3) "Artists in Britain since 1945" - the book exists, but is not digitized as far as I can tell, so cannot verify that it covers the subject. Ditto for Debrett's Distinguished People of Today. WP:AGF is all nice and good, but after three verifications failed I am afraid it is hard to assume those sources exist :( 4) other sources cited seem even more niche and almost none are online and easy to verify outside and, the latter however does not seem to even mention her; as for the former, I am not sure if www.artbiogs.co.uk is really reliable (about is "Artbiogs has been researched and produced by Geoff Hassell" - who is Geoff Hassell? Bottom line this source seems like "a website maintained by one person", WP:SPS?). I should also add that I did my own BEFORE and couldn't find any significant mention of her, even a sentence in passing, in Google Scholar or Books. I have minor concerns this could be a partial WP:HOAX, given verification failed or is very hard to carry out, as well as major concerns about whether the subject meets WP:NARTIST/NBIO/GNG. Let's discuss. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  07:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  07:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  07:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  07:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment. As indicated at WP:PUBLISHED, sources that are available in print but not online are allowed. WorldCat lists 289 libraries worldwide that hold Arts Review; the fact that certain articles from that publication from the 1970s are not mentioned online doesn't suggest to me that the articles don't exist. It may be that the subject doesn't qualify as notable per WP:ARTIST, but I don't see anything here that looks like a hoax. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , You are right about PUBLISHED, and probably right it is not a hoax, that said, when verification fails three times or so, it's a red flag that should be brought to community attention. This might be just the case of a dedicated editor having access to some rare databases or local libraries - at the same time, we had cases of mass hoax creations by others. They look the same, on the surface, so keeping in mind AGF, we need independent verification that those sources really exist and say what they do. Otherwise, we open ourselves to real hoaxes. Supplementary reading: List of hoaxes on Wikipedia... PS. Just to repeat: I am not claiming this is a hoax, I am just saying that while the subject exists I wasn't able to verify more than this fact, and I also failed to verify that some of the key sources used here even exist. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  04:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 *  Delete  Fails WP:GNG; WP:ARTIST, article has a promotional tone, mirrored in the artist's, IMHO, overblown website. Exhibiting in an art shop in Hitchin, lovely town though it might be, is not the way to notability. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , The nominator has provided scans of the sources used on my talkpage (see ). Not all of them are high quality, but there's enough here to make me consider withdrawing this nomination - although I cannot do so if there are any delete votes. What's your take on the sources now that we can see them? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Happy to strike,, however I do note those sources are very marginal, confined to the 1970s and not at all mainstream (catalogue entries, local newspapers) - so I think we're still in pretty rocky notability territory and would tend myself to lean 'Delete' still. However, I'll leave it to you! :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing nomination per the above discussion. This is a niche subject, but sources have been presented, seem to meet SIGCOV and NBIO in my opinion, if just a tad bit over borderline. No remaining deletion votes. Unlesss anyone wants to add a delete vote, I think we are done here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:15, 20 April 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.