Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natasha michels


 * 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 -  Peripitus (Talk) 22:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Natasha michels

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )
 * – (Another copy of the same material)(correction not infact the same material, but an unfinishhed lesser version)

17-year old painter, fails WP:ARTIST and no evidence of satisfying WP:GNG. No relevant hits on Google News, or even on Google Web. Prod removed by IP without explanation or improvement. Hqb (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I can't find anything to establish notability. No significant coverage in reliable sources.   GB fan  talk 14:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete both … no WP:RS to establish WP:ARTIST, WP:BLP, or even WP:GNG. Happy Editing! &mdash;  17:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Very young artist who hasn't achieved notability yet. No reliable sources to indicate anything approaching notability. Definitely not ready for an encyclopedia.  freshacconci  talk talk  23:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep -your all being quite ignorant, do u have any idea how the mca works? privatized contracts and witheld information all in the intrests of revenue. . What high esteemed australia artist can u find on the net, like one. please learn somethign about the topic and the way the industry works before u say its not notable, this is one of the few ways to actulaly beat there systems to get their names out there without breaching any coorparate laws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sr2020 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)  — Sr2020 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep - I have an assignment to do on a favourite young australian artist and this was my source. In my opinion her unique works are both engaging and inspiring. This page should be allowed to be viewed by others who could also utilise the information provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.109.83 (talk • contribs) 2010-07-19T10:52:29 — 59.101.109.83 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Delete per nom. Interesting keep rationale put forth by IP: this is my source for my homework assignment. Lionel (talk) 05:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * update: just yesterday ( 19th of july) one of her paintings sold for a youthful record of 93,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sr2020 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So, where is the WP:RS to support that claim? &mdash; 70.21.13.215 (talk) 07:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * to the comment above about your preciouse WP:RS, please gain some insight into the topic or atleast some common sense before you post comments, you really make yourself look like a fool.on a relataed note i'll be sure to try and get a 2nd hand copy of the (private) auctions manuscripts and email them to you... what is your email ?*sarcasm* Sr2020 (talk) 08:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Without a reliable source so that the information can be verified it does not help establish notability, sorry.  GB fan  talk 08:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

ill do my best to actulaly get a copy of the manuscript then. sigh Sr2020 (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A private copy of the auction manuscript is not appropriate documentation; that would constitute original research. If the sale price is indeed notably high (a "record"), then surely a reliable news source will find it worthy to report on, and you will be able to simply cite that coverage.
 * Incidentally, you appear to have more than a casual connection with the subject of the article. You should therefore make sure to familiarize yourself thoroughly with our Conflict of Interest guidelines before commenting or editing further. Hqb (talk) 09:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

please justify your claims against me. also u cleary do not understand the relation between cont art and localised media Sr2020 (talk) 09:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No claims, just a friendly reminder about an important Wikipedia guideline that you need to be aware of. Hqb (talk) 10:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

appreciate the thought, but i was already well aware of this guideline. cheers Sr2020 (talk) 10:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The biggest claim for notability would be being part of the MCA Collection : New Acquisitions 28 July 2009 - 31 January 2010. A google search finds this with no mention of Michels. Searches for variations on "Natasha Michels", "New Artist", "The Museum of Contemporary Arts", "Artist of the Year Awards" and "2009" reveal nothing other than this wiki article. Frankie Magazine has a web presence but again there are no hits for "Natasha Michels". It would be helpful if the article creator would provide at least an issue number and page number for that particle issue. As expected, google reveals nothing about the record sale added. Without a single reliable source none of this can be verified and given Sr2020's belligerent attitude above I suspect that none will be forthcoming. I will assume good faith and not draw any conclusions about any of this.  freshacconci  talk talk  12:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete both - not notable per WP:ARTIST. No reliable evidence that this artist has yet produced a body of work that would justify inclusion. None of the arguments for 'keep' address the core issue of notability. Jimmy Pitt   talk  12:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't find any evidence for the claims in the article, either. The painting 'Golopesis' is obviously not as known as claimed, not having even made it into a blog. No connection between the artist's name and the sum quoted. I would suggest to the creator and any other supporters that they refrain from calling us ignorant and actually look at the relevant Wikipedia policies. If they don't like them, they can always go somewhere else like LinkedIn or FaceBook. This is an encyclopaedia. They aren't. Peridon (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

have u taken time ot look at the mca website, its jsut a selfpromoting peice of junk intrested in furthering profits, it does not tlel speciifcly of any artists show exhibitions etc all it does is promote. they have tight strict contract laws with artisit mainly because of things like the internet whihc make information so easily gotten a killer to attrating intrest ot a museum. they prefe rot keep things "traiditonal and classy" piublishing books programs etc anything thye can to get people down to the msueum to learn for themselves. I have given date of frnakie but i can add issue specifis if u like. also their auctions are not publicised and are ivnite only which outcome snot given to press or public in t e intrest of the msueum,artist and msot importantly the buyer. this is one way to beat there tightntess and ifnally get peoples names out there who desevre it, this is nto so much a battle of michels but a battle to break the norm, beat the system etc etc sorry bout the typing etc etc etc 13:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sr2020 (talk • contribs)

i may also request that any comments made by user:The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome should not be taken into consideration because of the racial biased he brings to the topicSr2020 (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC).
 * Sorry, but... Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Also, Wikipedia is not a tool for fighting the establishment (or terrorism, or Mrs Brown at No 43 or whoever). A secret auction that cannot be verified is not a referenceable thing. Peridon (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

it can b varified, give me couple days to get a copy  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sr2020 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless a reliable source produces the information it is not usable to verify the information. Not saying that you would do it, but anyone can put together an official looking document.  So if you get a copy of the document and post it that does not verify that the document is legitimate.  I hope you understand.   GB fan  talk 14:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

ahk fair enough —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sr2020 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * KeepThis article may be used to expand the Sydney art scene which has been developing quite rapidly during recent years. The artist must be quite notable to exhibit at the MCA (which do have quite a strict publication policy) and to have sold a piece for that sum at so young an age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.229.233.87 (talk) 01:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)  —  60.229.233.87 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * It might be notable if there were any evidence of either claim... Peridon (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I've worked with this editor after speedy-deleting the first version of this article - she eventually produced enough of an assertion of notability to avoid speedy deletion, but has never been able to substantiate it. Without any reliable sourcing, the claim of notability does not hold, and the assertions of near-notability either aren't credible or can't be verified. Claims of discrimination are specious - the lack of sourcing extends to the background of the artist, and in any case, unreferenced biographies are also subject to eventual deletion, regardless of assertions of notability.  Acroterion  (talk)  14:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * what claims of discrimination is one refering to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sr2020 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not completely sure, but they may have been referring to this edit that you made that talks about someone who hasn't even commented on the AFD being racist.  GB fan  talk 07:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

hmm cant find his exact post either but the racism didnt come on this but infact my own talk page thigny for my account. He basicle said anybody who does not have an english education( ie me being sri lankan born) must be very very very stupid which i find very racist to any non english speaking country and also quite discriminitory to any one less fortunate in english speaking countries.i think at the time he wasnt signed in and commented under the ip of:70.21.13.215 but i can not be entirely sure my only guess to this is that he refered to my comment below this post about email in his racial rant. Sr2020 (talk) 08:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the only person to bring race into this was you. The IP editor just pointed out that you ought to pay more attention to basic spelling and grammar if you want people to take you seriously. Your comments do give the impression of someone who simply can't be bothered to write proper English, not someone who is merely not a native speaker. And as a matter of fact, it is quite proper to expect contributors to an English encyclopedia to display a minimal level of proficiency in that language. Occasional honest mistakes are perfectly understandable and excusable; blatant disregard of the rules is not, and calling people "racist" out of the blue is definitely not appropriate, either. Hqb (talk) 10:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

so do u agree then anyone without an english education ios very very stupid? also wikipedia isnt stircly an english encyclapedia Sr2020 (talk) 10:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct, Wikipedia is not strictly an english encyclopedia, it is multiple encyclopedias in many languages. This Wikipedia that you are posting to is strictly the English one.  SO people do expect other editors to try to display a minimal level of proficiency.  Your English is very hard to read but I think we understand your points.  There are people without an English education who are very smart and there are people with an English education who are very stupid.  Where the education comes from or what language they speak has nothing to do with their intelligence level.   GB fan  talk 11:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

thats was exactly my point thankyou gb fan and is why i had a big problem with what biginome proejct(cant rmb name exactly) said and why hpb supported it with a very hurtful tone towards me(may not of been intentially) Sr2020 (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, if you honestly don't know which of "you" or "u" is the proper spelling, then no, you probably shouldn't try to contribute to the English Wikipedia, regardless of your general level of intelligence. If you do know, but simply don't care, and still expect everyone else to pay full attention to your comments, then you are indeed probably "either very young or not very very smart". Now, can we please get back to discussing the merits of the Natasha Michels article? Thanks, Hqb (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

well i do know the difference but i sitll tyr to limit the amount of letters word i use and stick to thigns i know so i dont get confused and become incoherant im sure u quite able to udnerstand what "u" is refering to and i belive i should try to contribute i live in australia now and i need to learn to better adapt and immerse myself within its culture i onyl try to help and edit and add thigns and when i do edit proper pages i will take my time and continuely check and whatever i miss hopefully it isnt to much for someone to help me out. i feel veyr unrespected by you at the moment as im only trying to contribute as i thought wikipedia wnated but im being met very apphrensivly, u continue to be cruel wihtout any hint of remorse and u continue to hint upon discrimination to those lacking english skills saying they have nothing to offer engish society and encylpedia then top of it of with a quotation and refernce back to the terribly hurtful racial remark. Please be more compassionate, because i can not continue to discuss the articles merit when i feel im being targeted i get hurt and my comment as uv probly seen turn into unfair anrgy rants that dont add to the topic at all (like this one for example which i apoligse for ina dvance but i needed ot be ehard) Sr2020 (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To be perfectly honest, I would have assumed someone with a good command of English, but a poor command of - or an indifference to - typographical accuracy. The spelling errors in the main are typos not a lack of knowledge of the language. A use of txting comes to mind, too. I have had quite some experience with users of English as second language, dyslexics and people whose fingers can't keep up with their minds. (Me, for one in the last case...) Slow down. There's no prize for speed. There is advantage in getting your point over clearly. (I am currently writing some pieces narrated by a person whose spelling is way behind their intelligence. It's great fun, and not nearly as easy as it sounds...) Peridon (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Young artist not particularly notable, certainly not encyclopedia material yet...Modernist (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Per above. Unusual that for such a specific claim-- highest paid Australian artist at 17--there are no news hits. Hoax? JNW (talk) 23:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

so many paintings are dols every dayy, fairly high priced paintings are sold every week, high priced paintings ar esold every month-year with extreme unpredictable time variations and patterns. The "internet" is rarely told as stated before because of agremeents and suchs between buyers holders etc etc i know this doenst help the claim and wont sotp being dleted cause no proff but i just needed to combat the question of hoaxs Sr2020 (talk) 03:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I will be happy to have my suspicions disproved. One has been down this road before, and is wary of bold claims supported only by high dudgeon. Bring on the reliable sources please. JNW (talk) 03:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Seconded. I'm happy to be proved wrong too. But, if these things are secret, we can't use them - because we can't check them. I would have thought, however, that a very high price paid for a very young artist's work would not be kept secret. Purchasers of paintings like to keep their value high, and secrecy works against this. (In the case of Old Masters, other factors come into play...) Interesting that a copy of this article (copied and pasted complete with square brackets and cn tag has appeared at Zimbio - posted by someone claiming to live in Beijing. Not a valid reference, of course, but interesting....... Peridon (talk) 09:50, 24 July 2010 (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.