Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Márta Lacza


 * 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. North America1000 09:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Márta Lacza

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

New BLP Article, with BLP-Prod removed by SPA account Ali ACER - 2. No references. scope_creep (talk) 08:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Hebrides (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:BLPPROD cannot be removed without adding a reference, and the editor who did so could be warned. I've done so. There's no harm at all in bringing the matter here, of course. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep – I've done some work on this article, expanding, adding references, categories, wikilinks, etc. It now includes coverage in several independent secondary sources, details of solo exhibitions over twenty years, and of illustrations in a number of published books and, in my opinion, sufficient detail to satisfy notability concerns. — Hebrides (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Please CLOSE. Article has been updated drastically with sources and now has a valid authority tag within it. Please CLOSE. scope_creep (talk) 10:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete instead as I nearly closed but given the improvements apparently show no collections or reviews, that's still questionable for the notability. SwisterTwister   talk  18:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * *Delete. No special claims of notability. Sources are gallery catalogue or library catalogue entries. Ghits appear to reveal nothing else. Article on Turkish WP has similar sources, Azebaijani WP article is unsourced. 00:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)


 * Speedy Keep Most creative article are notable, as the creative event is unique, misunderstood and quite special and notable within WP. Ton of work done the article to build on. Article series is much is much more healthy per refs. Whats not to like. scope_creep (talk) 01:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * are you withdrawing the nomination? Mduvekot (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: I did a fair bit of work on this article, but it is definitely still "work in progress". I stumbled across the stub when it was first created and did some searching – decided the artist was notable enough, but it would be quite a challenge to write the article since most of the sources are in Hungarian. There is a lot on Hungaricana (141 hits) including a number of newspaper articles, and I was hoping that someone with a knowledge of the language could maybe come in on this and help to put enough into the article to demonstrate notability. I find that what I can glean from Google translate is quite patchy with Hungarian. Apologies if I haven't yet managed to make the article a "finished product", but the collaborative authoring aspect of Wikipedia is one of its strengths, and it would be a shame if this topic was snuffed out at this stage because it has not had enough time to reach the required standards. Can some of you work with me on this over the coming weeks and see if we can incorporate the necessary evidence of notability?


 * Just for the record, I have no connection whatsoever with the subject of this article, with the other contributors, or with Hungary in general. I never get paid for anything I contribute to Wikipedia. I've been editing for over ten years, but must admit this article is one of the more difficult ones I've tried to work on, mainly because of language difficulties. All contributions and help would be appreciated. — Hebrides (talk) 10:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: I discovered that you get more search hits if you put the surname first (I think this is a Hungarian convention) – searching for "Lacza Márta" instead of "Márta Lacza" — Hebrides (talk) 11:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Update: since the comments above, I have done further work on the article; I've also added two more references (one of them a two-page feature article in a magazine) and improved the URLs for newspaper articles in the Hungaricana archive so that they go straight to the right page and highlight her name. There is a lot more material about her online which I could add to the references if there is a consensus that any particular facts need citations. All feedback welcome. — Hebrides (talk) 11:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Yip I'm like to draw the nomination down. There has been a load of good fast work on the article by Hebrides, and indeed the whole series of 195 articles created by Adem20, 78 when the Afd was opened is now is a much better condition, all with references, which I was hoping for. I'm happy. Speedy Keep. scope_creep (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I have checked all the references again and made a new search on Google. I still find nothing that looks like a WP:Reliable source. Social media, entries in gallery catalogues or online book stores do not assert notability. All other mentions a fleeting. There is bo in-depth coverage of this artist in ndependent3rd party sources. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment A valid authority tag makes it makes it safe though, does it not? I've made the mistake of trying to delete other articles with authority tags on them in the past and they have been reverted, specifically for that reason. Although I'm not sure, I think probably a major piece of work has been created at some point in the past by the artist and which you may not necessarily have a reference, but WorldCat/Viaf has certainly taken cognizance of it. It's got to be notable by definition? Unless the tag is faulty, but the D.O.B matches, so I can't see how. I think it is notable. When I nominated it on the 22nd Dec. the tag wasn't present, so I think the work has been done. scope_creep (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Notability: Since "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article" (WP:ARTN), I suggest our first priority is to establish the notability of the subject, working initially to a baseline of the General notability guidline: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."


 * With this in mind, I suggest we consider the following sources (all available online) against the criteria of significant coverage (described as "more than a trivial mention"), and for the reliability and independence of the source publication.


 * 1) A substantial two-page article (turn to pages 6 and 7 in this magazine) titled Közel kerülni a természethez Látogatóban – Lacza Márta és Dékány Agoston képzőművészeknél ("Visiting close to nature - Lacza Martha and Dékány Agoston artists") about Márta Lacza and her husband. At over 2000 words and including photographs, this is "more than a trivial mention". The source publication is the March 1999 edition of Tehetség ("Talent"), a quarterly publication produced with the support of the Ministry of Education (see information box on page 11 of the magazine)
 * 2) A 270-word article about the artist and her exhibition (link) in the newspaper Pest Megyei Hírlap published 20 July 1982, titled KISZ-galéria – Érdekes kiállítás – again, more than a trivial mention
 * 3) A newspaper article of about 450 words titled Folytatja munkáját a nemzetközi régészkonferencia – Megnyílt Lacza Márta és Dékány Ágoston kiállítása (link) (which Google translates as "Continue to work with international archeology conference - Opening of exhibition Lacza Martha and Dékány Augustine") in the 30 September 1986 issue of the newspaper Szolnok  Megyei  Néplap. The article includes a photograph of the exhibition room.
 * 4) A quarter-page newspaper article of about 260 words in Somogyi Néplap (19 September 1986) titled AZ ÖRÖM ES FÁJDALOM EGYLÉNYEGŰSÉGE Lacza Márta kiállítása Kaposváron, a Bernáth-teremben (link) about her exhibition in the Bernath Hall in Kaposvár, which includes a photograph at the exhibition
 * 5) A periodical article of about 200 words dated 18 October 2012, with colour photographs, titled Művész házaspár kiállítása a Csepel Galériában ("The exhibition of the artist couple Csepel Gallery") (link – turn to page 14) which fills two-thirds of a page. The article is featured on the front cover as the lead article.
 * 6) A newspaper article of about 190 words in Dunántúlt napló (8 July 1981) titled Lacza Márta és Dékány Ágoston tárlata (link)


 * These are not all of the same quality or significance, but I am satisfied that they are all "more than a trivial mention". Establishing "reliability" and "independence" is open to discussion, but I am at least satisfied as to the credentials of Tehetség (#1) and Pest Megyei Hírlap (#2); regarding the other newspapers, we will have to take a view. I have not yet cited all of these sources in the article, due to time pressure (real life, etc), but I hope they will help our discussions on this page, and also act as a resource for others who play a part in developing the article in the future. Thank you all for working with me on this. — Hebrides (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I have also placed this list of sources on the article's talk page to help other editors who work to develop the article. — Hebrides (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:HEY I had my doubts, but has done enough to convince me. Thanks Henrides! Mduvekot (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Great work on the article, and finding valid references for this notable WP:ARTIST.  D r e a m Focus  04:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - in the light of new evidence (changed vote from delete). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:40, 31 December 2016 (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.