Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natani Notah


 * 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. There seems to be good consensus that this person is currently not notable (this is even asserted by several "keep" !votes) and that this may be a case of TOOSOON. However, keeping a copy in an editor's sandbox is not a good solution for two reasons. First of all and most importantly, the copy paste to User:Mary Mark Ockerbloom/sandbox/Natani Notah violates our copyright, because the edit history has been lost. Second, articles deleted at AfD should not be kept in a user's personal space indefinitely. There is nothing wrong with making a note to self to revisit this yearly and if this person at some point becomes notable, it will be easy enough to undelete the current version and work from there. Because of the copyright issue, I will also delete the current sandbox version. Randykitty (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Natani Notah

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not yet a notable artist. Sources are either not independent, not indepth, or blogs and the like. No Google News results, no other sources which could help establish notability. Fram (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 13:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:ARTIST, so the question is WP:GNG. She is on her way to a career, but both a search and a perusual of the article sources turns up only event announcements and trivial coverage of the regular artist things she has participated in, like exhibitions, and an interview here or there. There is basically no significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Sculpture magazine is prominently mentioned but all I saw there was a statement that she had received a student award and a picture of her work, without critical writing. A case of obvious self-promotion as the page reads like a CV, and also WP:TOOSOON.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Please keep I understand your concerns. A few edits have been made since the above posts. I would argue that Natani is a notable artist as evidenced by her lectures, exhibitions, and residencies at universities and other leading institutions. By and large, women of color, and American Indian artists are grossly underrepresented in mainstream media, and in trade and academic publications. Consequently the face more questions about their notability in the real world and on wikipedia. Interviews, smaller more community focussed publications, and institutional event texts are often the best we have to work with. This reinforces real life inequity and replicates it on wikipedia. This posting was decided on and co-written by a number of students at Cornell University as part of the Art & Community editathon which is specifically designed to insert more articles about notable but underrepresented artists into the wikipedia archive. The students are not affiliated directly in anyway with the artist and are not interested in self-promotion. I hope you will reconsider. JVadera (talk)
 * I agree with what you say, but recognizing social inequities is not how we establish notability on Wikipedia; we are not here to right social wrongs. We just condense and report on established sources, of which there are not enough to (currently) establish notability here. Efforts to correct the imbalance of representation on Wikipedia are very welcomed! However because all editors are essentially assumed to be ignorant of the subject, there have to be independent reliable sources to establish the notability of an article subject. We do not make editorial decisons: others in reliable sources do. That is the way this whole encyclopedia has been built. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment The only two references still present in the current version of the article fail to verify the statements for which they are cited. Which might make one wonder where all that information came from in the first place. Below is a list of all the sources that have been used in the article in earlier versions.
 * http://eastbay.dothebay.com/events/2019/5/12/2018-2019-graduate-fellows-exhibition
 * http://latinbayarea.com/wordpress/2019/01/16/exhibit-postcolonial-revenge-exhibition-sf/
 * http://missionculturalcenter.org/?event=postcolonial-revenge-exhibition
 * http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2016/03/runway-role-play-becomes-luminous-reality
 * http://www.capradio.org/124778
 * http://www.headlands.org/artist/natani-notah/
 * http://www.manacontemporarychicago.com/throughhereye
 * http://www.nataninotah.com/about
 * http://www.nataninotah.com/dust-mask-series
 * http://www.nataninotah.com/performance
 * http://www.yellowmedicinereviewstore.com/store/p26/Yellow_Medicine_Review,_Fall_2016.html
 * https://aap.cornell.edu/news-events/natani-notah-seed-beads-and-skirts-native-american-feminist-art-practice
 * https://aidalizalde.com/thankyou-thankyou-thankyou
 * https://aiisp.cornell.edu/people/natani-notah/
 * https://art.stanford.edu/exhibitions/where-here-2018-stanford-mfa-thesis-exhibition
 * https://art.stanford.edu/people/natani-notah
 * https://arts.ucdavis.edu/announcement/alumna-aida-lizalde-promotes-exhibition-capital-public-radio
 * https://asusjournal.org/issue-5/natani-notah-poetry/
 * https://blog.sculpture.org/2018/07/24/talks-tours-and-tech-natani-notah/
 * https://docplayer.net/60553855-The-annual-murphy-cadogan-contemporary-art-awards-exhibition.html
 * https://issuu.com/theanniedare/docs/catalogue_final.compressed
 * https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54ecf922e4b0c4f9160c14ab/t/5b982716cd8366126f70b442/1536698134432/2018-0923-Through+Her+Eye+PR.pdf
 * https://urbanxindigenous.wordpress.com/category/uncategorized/
 * https://walkingshield.org/education-program/
 * https://www.romadailynews.it/eventi/wi-fi-art-presenta-meet-us-domenica-7-aprile-al-circolo-degli-artisti-0148104/
 * https://www.sculpture.org/studentawards/2018/recipients.shtml
 * https://www.sealpress.com/titles/daisy-hernandez/colonize-this/9780786750665/
 * https://www.somarts.org/events/murphycadogan2017/
 * https://www.umass.edu/events/five-college-native-american
 * https://www.womenwarriorswork.org/natani-notah
 * Vexations (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Any conclusions from the above list?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep for now. I agree many of the previous list of sources are COI. However I know the person who began this article is new and it seems that many editors are helping to try to flesh this out more appropriately. I'd like to give JVadera and his student, Eoghanrdempsey, a bit of time to finish their work (University level) as they may have access to offline material for sources that would help stabilize the article. Yes, the article should've had all of this before being published, but it is actively being edited, so I'd like to see where it lands. Thanks!Heathart (talk) 03:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , hasn't edited since creating Natani Notah on 26 March 2019. Can we reasonably expect that keeping the article will result in improvements? Draftifying is an alternative to deletion if Eoghanrdempsey and  could convince us that they have access to independent, reliable sources that we haven't found yet and they are available to expand the article using those sources.Vexations (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Draftifying sounds like a good idea if is willing take that on?Heathart (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Notah is interesting and doing good work, but WP:TOOSOON in my opinion. I have spent considerable time searching for sources to validate the information in the article. Notah is very early career; she is included in the Heard Museum's American Artists Resource Collection Online, but I was able to confirm only 1 solo exhibition. She has a few publications in magazines, and may be a contributor to the third edition of Colonize This! edited by Daisy Hernández, to appear July 2019. Seed Beads and Skirts: A Native American, Feminist Art Practice sounds fascinating but it is her M.F.A. Thesis.


 * To reach notability, she needs: (1) more solo exhibitions (2) inclusion of her works in major galleries or museums (3) discussions of her work that are not written by herself or an exhibition's venue or curator . If the original creators of this article can cite such reviews and discussion from paper-based sources (newspapers or books) that could help. Otherwise I would say try again in five years when she has done more. I am saving a copy in my sandbox, with a note to revisit yearly. I would be happy to have people continue to work on it there if they wish. (My sandbox would be a more stable location than Draft:) Regretfully, Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Draftify per 's proposal. I'd like to make one observation, if I may. I'm a little bothered by "not written by herself or an exhibition's venue or curator", because it weakens WP:ARTIST. When a museum curator provides critical analysis of an artist's work in an artist monograph, that is a reliable source. It should not be disregarded as "not independent". Museums obviously have a relationship with the artists they exhibit, but they are independent. A museum exhibit is a acknowledgement of an artist's significance. It should be a considerable factor in evaluating notability. Vexations (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the correction, . If you feel that I've been overly strict in judging the article based on the citations available, please say so. I agree that curators are a valuable source of information, and if you feel the weight of being including in group exhibitions (of which quite a number are listed) is sufficient to support notability in this case, I'm happy to consider that possibility. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I think you've given a very fair assessment of what we can get from the sources. Notah is an emerging artist who has not yet received sufficient critical attention to sustain an article about her. It would be a waste to delete the material we have gathered so far, and since you offered to care for the draft until the sources become available, and the original author has not responded, we should take you up on your offer. Vexations (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Mary Mark Ockerbloom's comments are spot on. However I do not understand the the draftify idea being kicked around above. We have all taken a serious shot at finding good sources and have not succeeded. It will take years for her to develop notability required for an article. A draft will be gone in 6 months. Why not just delete, with allowance for WP:REFUND? ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Happy to rework Thank you everybody for your thoughtful analysis. Not sure exactly how draftify works or if it is just better to move the draft over to my sandbox?JVadera (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Emerging consensus seems to be that she does not pass Wikipedia's guidelines for notability at this time, based on the sources we've seen. Deleting the article would lose the work; moving it into the official Draft space is only a temporary solution (drafts may be deleted after 6 months).  A personal sandbox is more stable, so moving this into someone's sandbox is likely the best solution. If you want help with it in future you are welcome to tag me about it.  Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Keep for now I generally believe that this individual, while doing good work, is not notable yet to the point that she merits her own page. I generally look to see if the sources are national or international in scope. However, I appreciate the work being done on this page and would encourage the authors to continue. Leaving it up will enable them to do that. If, in another 6 months or so there has been no updates or edits of value, a RFD is approrpriate. Coffee312 (talk) 21:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.