Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Dumlao


 * 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. Fails WP:GNG, but some argument could be made that Brainstormers might be notable, and if that article were to be created, some of the material from here might be used. If anybody wants to write Brainstormers and wants access to the old contents of Maria Dumlao for reference, ask an admin to userfy the archived contents. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Maria Dumlao

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not previously  PRODed, but  a notability  tag was removed. The plethora of sources is of dubious reliability. Some link to  404 pages, while others are merely  exhibition listings or faculty listed staff. Some have only very  fleeting  mentions as a co-exhibitor while some don't  appear to  mention  the subject  at  all. Further searches have not turned up  any  sources that provide in-depth  coverage. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The Brainstormers seem to have got a bit more press than Dumlao. Possibly this could be moved, if there are sufficient sources on them. I'll try and have a more detailed look later. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply So punish the article with a deletion tag because the notability tag was removed? "The plethora of sources is of dubious reliability" is a complete exaggeration. Do a little further searching and relink!! Someone already has in a situation where you don't need to (Mira Schor book source.) You didn't even try, and your deletion tag is excessive.--38.105.132.130 (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment @38.105.132.130: would you be so kind please to refrain from personal attacks? And if a notability tag is removed without any attempt to solve the underlying problem, I also often take AfD as the next step. --Randykitty (talk) 11:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply Done. But taking AfD's gotta stop: It's an escalation. Nowhere in Wikipedia's guidelines does it say to do this. The woman who initially put a notability tag didn't explain her rationale and is trigger-happy.--Aichik (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Stop worrying about the person who first put the notability tag - that's now unimportant. Kudpung did give a rationale for deletion, and this discussion will continue until it is resolved one way or the other. What would be useful is adding more references to third-party sources to prove the subject is notable. Lady  of  Shalott  23:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. The article does not convince me of a pass of WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. I suspect the Brainstormers would be sufficiently notable as a group, however, so if an article on them is created it would be ok to redirect from this title to it. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * See below. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Suggestion - Since folks seem to be thinking the Brainstormers are notable, even if this particular artist may not be on her own, how about we userfy this so it can be reworked into an article about the group? Lady  of  Shalott  17:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)




 * Passes WP:ARTIST in the following ways:
 * 1. a) She's a part of Brainstormers, b) has shown all over Europe and in Japan, c) is part of the Vox Populi art collective, and d) her work is in the Momenta Art video library in New York City which also contains the videos of Katia Bassanini, Janet Biggs, Omer Fast, Rico Gatson, Kristin Lucas, and Ara Peterson. (The links for each show that all of these artists have either gallery representation and, if not currently, significant careers).
 * 2. Her video work about reframing scenes from pop culture is innovative. Brainstormers is also innovative in furthering the work of the Guerilla Girls and was noted in Mira Schor's book.
 * 3. She has "played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work" with the Brainstormers. She herself has "created a significant work" as evidenced by 1d, above.
 * 4. She has won significant critical attention: ArtNews, Brooklyn Rail, ArtNet, Mira Schor book.--38.105.132.130 (talk) 03:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Also passes WP:GNG in key ways but working to beef up sources even more. thanks for your patience--38.105.132.130 (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Proponents are arguing mostly in the context of being a member of the Brainstormers group, which I don't think makes her necessarily notable as an individual (e.g. the "significant critical attention" from the previous !vote is for the Brainstormers). The main issue I see is that the sources are overall very poor, which is inconsistent with a BLP. Specifically:
 * 1. personal web page at www.mariadumlao.com: CV
 * Take the artist's word on her exchange program experience. I can link examples of other contemporary artists resumes here if you need. They are highly unlikely to make up something like a semester abroad and the institutions in question will NOT have a record of them on their websites as they did not graduate. In fact, most institutions don't even release the names and dates of their graduates as this is considered personal information.--Aichik (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As for the same reference used to show where she is from, we could take that out, if everyone really feels that that is something she made up. It's a vital, interesting detail but I can take it out if there's consensus that it should go out.--Aichik (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's precisely it – we don't take the subject's word. WP:RS requires a source be independent of subject, which a personal web page is precisely not. This should be moved to "external links". Agricola44 (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC).
 * ✅ Have one now, but knowing your inability to read and interpret things, Agricola, you will make it out to be "her personal webpage": a link from Experimental Television Center, a nonprofit from which Dumlao received a residency.--Aichik (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 2. web advert ✅ Look at it. It's the page from a nonprofit, NOT a web advert. The NY Arts link confirms the same information.--Aichik (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is precisely a web advert – it is an advertisement for a "record release event". Agricola44 (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC).
 * It's not an advert in the sense that the band paid for it: It's informational. That's why I said nonprofit for the organization that owns and administers the website. AND AS I SAID THERE'S ALREADY LINKS ESTABLISHING THE SAME FACT.--Aichik (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This is WP:WIKILAWYERING – this web page's purpose is to advertise a performance. It doesn't matter who "paid for it". Agricola44 (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC).
 * Agricola, YOU are the one doing the WP:WIKILAWYERING. Of course it matter "who paid for something:" That shows commercial interest. There is none expressed on that page or by Bowerbird.--Aichik (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 3. dead link ✅ Updated the link.--Aichik (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 4. dead link
 * ✅ Source in the middle of updating their website as told here. The name of the group show, Silhouette, is there, however, and anyone is free to contact the gallery to confirm Dumlao was in that show.
 * Again, not WP:RS. It is not in the character of a reliable source to require the reader to contact an outside entity to check the veracity of the claim. Agricola44 (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC).
 * There was an older link that had this information. This is in the history of this article and as any person half a brain knows, websites are always updating all the time. --Aichik (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I forgot, I could cite the program cited.--Aichik (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 5. web page with trivial mention: "Artists include [long list of names], Maria Dumlao, [long list of names]"
 * ✅ Supplemented with a second link to an article in the Honolulu Advertiser.--Aichik (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 6. dead link
 * ✅ Replaced with link from Experimental Television Center, a nonprofit from which Dumlao received a residency.--Aichik (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 7. personal web page: "about me" ✅ Same as above.--Aichik (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 8. web page: no mention of Maria Dumlao
 * ✅ Because the link wasn't supposed to reference her, it's about the Brainstormers. They are in an image on left with a caption.--Aichik (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, about the Brainstormers, as opposed to discussing Dumlao as an individual. This one is fine for adding extra information to an otherwise already notable individual, but in and of itself it does not establish Dumlao's notability, only the Brainstormers group notability. Agricola44 (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC).
 * 9. about "Brainstormers" as a group
 * ✅ Please read more carefully: Her name is right there in the paragraph about the Brainstormers.--Aichik (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is again about the group, not Dumlao as an individual. This and other sources like it basically argue WP:INHERITED. Agricola44 (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC).
 * 10. personal web page on Vox Populi: "My work explores..."
 * ✅ Review the website more carefully and work on some articles on young American artists: It's not a personal page. It's a page devoted to her work on a nonprofit's website. All such content is always vetted by a third party. It's not straight up promotional: It's informational.--Aichik (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that Dumlao speaks in the first person here ("My work explores...") suggests she had some level of control overt this web page, hence it's not independent of her. Again, another great "more info" URL that belongs in an "external links" grouping at the bottom of the article, but is not itself WP:RS. Agricola44 (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC).
 * 11. personnel web page: Bucks County Community College
 * ✅ Is this a critique? Don't conflate personal with personnel. This is the school's website and establishes that she teaches there.--Aichik (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Precisely, she is college personnel here, hence my wording. Agricola44 (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC).
 * Okay, then it's not a problem. One point for the work already there.--Aichik (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * But again, a community college web page does not advance the notability argument. It simply says that she works in academia, a tautology for all academics. Agricola44 (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC).
 * 12. dead link ✅ See response to #4.
 * 13. dead link ✅. Updated link.--Aichik (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 14. personal webpage at www.mariadumlao.com: portfolio of works
 * ✅ I don't see what's wrong with referencing an artist's words about their own work. They would bring more clarity to understanding it. Do we NOT want information about artworks, just lists of where the work was shown? This doesn't seem enlightening.--Aichik (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, we want more info, but this is another personal page that is not WP:RS – move to "external links", as is convention. Agricola44 (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC).
 * I also take issue with calling this a personal page. It's not some website by a 14-year old bored teenager or a soccer mom and her kids. It has NO information about the artist's personal life! It is about her work, it is not personal. Find some other words, and stop throwing that word around like a badge.--Aichik (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 15. web page with trivial mention (i.e. her name within a large list of other names)
 * Like I explained above, this is a significant list. The Momenta Art video library in New York City also contains the videos of Katia Bassanini, Janet Biggs, Omer Fast, Rico Gatson, Kristin Lucas, and Ara Peterson and more (The links for each show that all of these artists have either gallery representation and, if not currently, significant careers). The list would seem like gibberish to anyone new to contemporary art, however.--Aichik (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Will edit this tomorrow. Enough work for today.--Aichik (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Gibberish or not. The salient point is that her mention is trivial. Agricola44 (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC).
 * Here is the correct reference: My guess is that Agricola would deem 1 out of 20 in a open submission policy in New York City as being noteworthy as original research.
 * 16. discussion in "The St Claire", which describes itself as "a digital publication...committed to engaging the Philadelphia art community"
 * 17. ARTnews article: no mention of Maria Dumlao
 * ✅ Doesn't have to. Once again, this is a section about the Brainstormers specifically, a detail about their work. Use the linked Mira Schor book as the means to link Dumlao to Brainstormers.--Aichik (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, another WP:INHERITED plea. Agricola44 (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC).
 * Yet another attempt by Agricola to hide behind Wikipedian officialdom. Anyone can look at our notes and judge. Why don't you try to convince us, rather than turn to WP:WIKILAWYERING?--Aichik (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 18. Brooklyn Rail article: trivial mention, lists the names of the members of Brainstormers
 * ✅ This reference is fine. Agricola44 neglects to mention this entire article is on the Brainstormers. ("Trivial" indeed.) Reference specifically to text "they protested in the street in Chelsea, New York, at the corner of West 24th Street and 10th Avenue, getting passers-by to fill in mad lib-style postcards protesting about the lack of female representation in art galleries." in Wikipedia article.--Aichik (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, again the operative context is the group, not Dumlao – more WP:INHERITED. Agricola44 (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC).
 * 19. Web article on Brainstormers: no mention of Maria Dumlao
 * ✅ Yet again, Agricola44 reads the reference out of context: the reference is meant to show that the Brainstormers showed at the LGBT Center in New York City, nothing more.--Aichik (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yet again, WP:INHERITED. Agricola44 (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC).
 * 20. web page: no mention of Maria Dumlao
 * ✅ A website with not the best archive. This shows she's in there but it's not what we need. Taking out. See 1b above.--Aichik (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

In the end, it seems there is essentially no WP:RS for this individual, which is untenable for a BLP. Agricola44 (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC).
 * Aichik has fixed some broken links and critiqued some of my annotations. The fact remains that whatever non-trivial sources are out there are predominantly about the Brainstormers, not about Maria Dumlao as an individual. If we follow policy here, all the WP:OR will have to stripped (according to WP:BLP) and it will leave essentially a stub saying that Maria Dumlao is a member of the Brainstormers. Agricola44 (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC).
 * For heaven's sake let me finish inputting then you can give your less-than-careful conclusion, Agricola44.--Aichik (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No need to insult me. I'm only a messenger. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC).
 * Not insulting you, I don't know you. Insulting the quality of your work: You need to stop and read more carefully overall.--Aichik (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case, once you're finished, I'll critique your less-than-convincing edits :) Agricola44 (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC).
 * Case in point: You concluded that by spending a total of 5 minutes looking over what I've added. Just want you to do your job, really. If you can't; we'll get a third opinion, thanks.--Aichik (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that the entire point of this page is to get multiple opinions, and several have chimed in here, that's not exactly necessary. Lady  of  Shalott  00:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the above list in particular, Lady. thanks--Aichik (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm neutral here, but I would just like to mention that I removed the listing of this discussion at WP:3 because although I wouldn't necessarily say it was listed in bad faith, it looks like borderline forum shopping; besides, if several users have already responded here, there has already been a third opinion given anyway.  Erpert  WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 05:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Synopsis. I responded individually to Aichik's points above. In summary, the references still only fall basically into 2 groups: those that discuss the Brainstormers group or only mention Dumlao trivially and those that are basically personal webpages having some association with Dumlao herself. Rules for BLPs are strict and, in this case, there simply isn't a sufficient body of WP:RS that establishes Dumlao's notability as an individual. Agricola44 (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC).
 * Reiteration. Everyone can take the time to read my points above. The term trivial and trivially is being used willy nilly by Agricola44, these are highly subjective terms, as is his blanket use of personal web page, when I've taken the time to make clear how that description does not fit each situation. Agricola44 responses to most of my counter arguments are quick, and he's in a big rush to delete this article for unknown personal reasons. He has little experience in editing articles about contemporary art, but importantly doesn't seem to care very much for it--compare his style to this editors'--so it behooves us to wait for other opinions to be expressed here instead of his insistent, incorrect ones, thanks.--Aichik (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Despite several more ad hominems above, I remind you that I'm arguing policy here, nothing more or less. I have no vested interest in having or not having this article on WP, no history with it, and no personal bias for or against Dumlao or contemporary art. It's time for you to cease with the continuing accusations. The heart of the matter seems to be that you have a different understanding of the validity of sources than I and the other eds here that frequent AfD discussions. As an example, you claim, in rebutting #14 above, that the web page at www.mariadumlao.com showing her portfolio is not a personal web page because it was not created "by a 14-year old bored teenager or a soccer mom and her kids". This reflects a basic misunderstanding of WP sourcing requirements, one of the cornerstones of which is independence from the subject. I submit that there are other misunderstandings as well, including what is meant by "trivial mention", why simply being a member of a group does not automatically confer notability on Dumlao as an individual, and how the requirements for bios of living people are among the most strict on WP. My assessment is made on the basis of these well-established guidelines and, if they are applied in this case, will necessarily lead to the deletion of this article. I can offer no more input here and will sit-out the rest of this discussion. I hope not to look forward to more snarky replies laced with insults and ad hominems. Thanks! Agricola44 (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC).


 * Thanks. Your list is outdated at this point anyway as I have added links from AlterNet, Art Fag City, and corrected all the dead links (There are a total of 24 references now rather than the 20 listed above.) Thanks for your time, Agricola.--Aichik (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. The only effect of the Wikipuffery and filibustering exhibited by the article's promoter is to strengthen my opinion above from weak delete to delete. If this is the best that can be done for the subject, it's not good enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. That's only your opinion, David. I've outlined succinctly how this article merits keeping. You need to outline succinctly, in a different way than what's been outlined already, WHY my points aren't good enough for you. Try to focus on content, not attitude.--Aichik (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * To be more explicit, my opinion is that the article is puffed up with very weak sources, that this puffery obscures any real sources that might be present, that the subject does not pass WP:GNG nor WP:ARTIST, and that your insistence on trying to counter every argument in this AfD is hardening opinions and thereby making it more likely rather than less likely that the article will be deleted. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Insufficient notability for GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC).
 * Keep Again, Why are you not more succinct? I suspect it's because you can't be. Here is how the article fits notability as established via GNG:
 * -"Significant coverage is more than a passing mention (#5 Art Fag City, #6 NY Arts), but it need not be the main topic of the source material. My emphases. (#9 AlterNet, Dumlao is quoted; #23 Brooklyn Rail Dumlao's name appears in first sentence of second paragraph on a whole article about the Brainstormers: The idea here is to reveal that the people behind the Brainstormers early on.) ✅
 * -"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media,and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. (All sources, except the 2 or 3 that link to Dumlao's website) ✅
 * -"Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online (NYFA article, Momenta catalog) and do not have to be in English. (See my points about Significant coverage, two paragraphs up)✅
 * -"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. (All the art magazines, Honolulu-based papers, Momenta) ✅ --Aichik (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I struck out your redundant "keep", since you had already expressed a keep opinion earlier. The rule here is to only allow a single keep or delete opinion per participant. (For instance, that's why I struck out my own earlier weak delete when I later expressed a delete opinion without the modifier.) —David Eppstein (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Xxanthippe's comment was very succinct. I suspect you meant something else. Lady  of  Shalott  00:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete All the arguments based on "she is a part of ..." are irrelevant. As for the GNG, it is true that it depends on interpretation of what we mean by substantial coverage and the similar key words in the definition, and whether we regard local sources as being sufficiently discriminating. The place to decide it  is here, and the basis for it is consensus. I agree with what I  think  is the developing  consensus,   that this is not sufficient  &#39;DGG (at NYPL)&#39; (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2014 (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.