Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veronica Ruiz de Velasco


 * 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 of the debate was Keep. Yanksox 01:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Veronica Ruiz de Velasco
Probably a hoax or an unknown amateur artist; there are only two wiki-independent hits in Google ; links in the article mostly lead nowhere or to general art sites without mentions about Velasco; therefore AfD per WP:BIO Ioannes Pragensis 14:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Note: this has been listed on WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts. Tyrenius 00:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I came across this article a few weeks ago and thought it might be an AfD, but there's too much substantiaton. The references section of the article has sufficient press mentions and there are also shows in public buildings. As the magazine articles have been scanned for her site here,  here and here, there's no reason to doubt the genuineness of the "Newspapers in Mexico" section (NB all 1986–89). The shows are also supported by photos.  There's a large  show of work  "Gallery of the Benito Juarez International Airport in Mexico City, Mexico". There's one   "Museo de Arte Moderno, México", where you can see her name displayed outside the building. There's an official opening "ABC (American British Cowdray) Hospital, México". It's undoubtedly not a hoax and the evidence shows she's not an "unknown amateur" artist. However, most of the activity is mid 1980s – mid 1990s and the mentions in print form, both of which would explain the current lack of web hits. The links in the article need pruning certainly. Tyrenius 19:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * On the other side, a few exhibitions in mostly small, privately owned galleries + some mentions in life-style magazines (written perhaps by people without art education) + one mural painting given to a hospital (the celebrities were of course present not because of the mural, not because of the painter, but because of the inauguration of the hospital) + one or two artefacts presented as a part of collective exhibitions in serious galleries - this does not constitute notability in the world of artists. Now she seems to be completely forgotten outside of Wikipedia, in the phase of life, when most artists are at the heights of their activity. In WP:BIO, the criteria for inclusion are much more strict: "Painters ... whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field."--Ioannes Pragensis 19:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So you agree she's not a "hoax or an unknown amateur artist", which was why you made the AfD in the first place. Now it's a matter of judgement as to how notable or otherwise. Obviously not top rank, but probably has as much presence in the art world as, for example, many bands do in the music world for whom articles are retained. She has had shows in private and public spaces, and she has been covered in the press including the New York Times (Shown, John; “Veronica Put Theater on Canvas”, New York Times, October, 1986). Check out the Newspapers section of the article. This seems to me to be sufficient verifiable coverage in the public domain to merit retaining this article. Tyrenius 21:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I still think that it is both: A hoax because it depicts her as an important artist (which is clearly not the case); and perhaps an amateur artist who was a member of the Mexican high society 15 years ago but earned few critical acclaim and is forgotten today. - The nawspapers cited in the article are not independent critical studes but just normal newspapers. Wikipedia should reflect importance of its subjects, not generate it.--Ioannes Pragensis 21:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * She had a solo show at the Museo de Arte Moderno, Mexico City. This is the Mexican national museum with "the best permanent exhibition of painters and sculptors from the modern Mexican art movement. It also features some of the most important temporary exhibitions of national and international modern art in the world." &mdash; hardly a "small, privately owned gallery" The article makes no claim of any "importance" specifically. It just states the facts of where she has had exhibitions and where she has been mentioned in print. A "hoax" is when something is fictitious, which this is clearly not. An "amateur" artist is not someone who has a solo show in a national museum or who exhibits in professional (i.e. by definition "private") galleries. Normal newspapers, as you put it, are acceptable sources to verify the notability of a person. It is not our job to evaluate whether she is a good, bad or indifferent artist quality-wise. Tyrenius 21:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I wrote much of this article based on her information on her website.  The article has a neutral view and based on facts presented from several articles/photographs from her official website.  Tyrenius has been really helpful in making sure this article is wikipedia formatted correctly and factful. With Veronica being in the National Museum of Mexico in 1986 and her teacher was Rufino Tamayo (one of the most famous painters of Mexico) and Jean Dubuffet, one cannot simply forget Ms. Ruiz de Velasco.  Also, the Director of Mexico Art has confirmed this in a letter.  Check out Letter from Bellas Artes Director and Director of the Modern Art Museum In terms of importance, I concluded from her website that if the owner of two professional hockey team has bought her art for a substantial price, then she might be notable. Also, in the 80's she had a show at the Museum of Modern Art in Mexico.  In the late 90's she had a show at the Irving Art Center.  The Irving Art Center is a Museum for Contemporary Artist.  This was also a solo exhibition and cannot be forgotten.  Also, she was chosen by the Dallas Museum of Art for art charity.  This is also a notable National institution.  They do not ask anyone for art charity. I am all for deleted this if someone could simply remove the fact that Veronica has been in several National Museums.  Also her teachers were Rufino Tamayo and Jean Dubuffet, and she has sold paintings at a notable price.  Also, in terms of her mural at the ABC Hospital.  It seems that the ABC Hospital in Mexico City is a world class private hospital built in 1954.  Therefore, Prince Charles and the US Ambassador did not show up to this hospital to inaugurate the hospital, but most likely to inaugurate her mural. There are pictures on her website.  Please check out this website  for more information on the hospital.  Also, she completed a mural for the Hamon Building at Southwest Medical Center which is a world renowned facility.  Nancy Hamon is a very notable individual.  It would seem that if Mrs. Hamon had issues with the notability of Veronica, why did she ask her to create a mural for her building?  Kmowery11:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Weak keep. Not a hoax, but perhaps somewhat a vanity article. Does not meet this notability criterion: Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field. --Lambiam Talk 22:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC) Not quite convinced, but giving the article the benefit of the doubt. (And – I know this is not an argument – I like the paintings.) --Lambiam Talk  23:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is that with a solo show at the The Museo de Arte Moderno and being included in the museum's twenty-five year celebration book, she is already part of the enduring historical record.Tyrenius 00:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My problem with this is that the only source for all this seems to be Kmowery, whose links in the Ruiz de Velasco article are generally not reliable, to put it mildly. Moreover, he/she tries to advertise Ruiz de Velasco with all possible means - study the list of his/her contributions. - The mentioned Ruiz de Velasco exhibition should have been 20 years ago, when Ruiz de Velasco allegedly studied painting - so perhaps a student exhibition. --Ioannes Pragensis 05:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually try to review her website with scanned articles and photographs. I have tried to list her on other pages according to her categories and wikipedia guidelines.  Tyrenius has been helping make sure that the listings are factual.  He has edited several articles.  If you see something that she should not be listed under let me know. Kmowery
 * Kmowery isn't the only source. Kmowery is the only author (of the article). There are plenty of sources given, and backed up by scans/photos if you follow the links in my first statement above. Her name is prominently shown in a photo of the Museo de Arte Moderno for example. The (external) links are reliable&mdash;they all link to what they state and are relevant to items mentioned in the text e.g. a particular museum. I think what you mean is that they don't necessarily show an artist mention at that museum, so they don't all need to be there. I have transformed some into a "see also" section. Re. "advertising", there is an explanation on User talk:Kmowery: Veronica Ruiz de Velasco was my first article. However, I tried to base it on fact and her information she provides on her website. I did not know that it is not good to put her in many different locations in Wikipedia. My bad. I thought you were suppose to add her to all the categories listed in her article. Let us AGF. Anyway, that's not a reason to delete the article&mdash;it's a reason to remove the mentions from excessive other pages. Also, artists do sometimes get prominent shows while they're still studying, so that's not problematic.Tyrenius 09:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * NB I have edited this article but only in a technical sense to cleanup and wikify, not with contributing material. Tyrenius 09:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep After re-reviewing the website articles/photos, the facts remain constant. There is no reason to delete this article.  I however do appreciate the input, and the chance to provide feedback. Kmowery 23:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems notable and valid. Stifle (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2006 (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.