Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeanette Zwingenberger

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. Notability still seems weak but, based on the new sources provided throughout the AfD, I will withdraw my nomination and close this. (non-admin closure) Jbh ^Talk 21:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanette Zwingenberger

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and notability criteria for academics. Sources consist of her CV and what looks like some user created academic collaboration site. GScholar shows several papers, none cited more than 7 times. News searches show nothing and a web search turns up social media etc. There may be material if French sources. Jbh ^Talk 20:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw notability still seems weak but, based on the new sources provided throughout the AfD, I will withdraw my nomination. Jbh ^Talk 21:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 20:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 20:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 20:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 20:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the page is on par with other women French academics, such as Catherine Perret, but I leave it to you all to decide. However I find an author of 30 books notable. Valueyou (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article you refer to is completely lacking in sources and would, as it stands, likely be deleted but for the claim of her being awarded Chevalier des Palmes académiques which seems to be prestigious enough to to pass WP:ANYBIO and WP:PROF#2. Properly there should be a source which confirms that award before it could be used to document notability. Per WP:BLP biographies of living people require sources. With a few narrow exceptions subjects of articles require significant coverage in independent, third party reliable sources to demonstrate they meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Jbh ^Talk 20:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like the subject passes the notability guideline for academics, but she may possibly be notable as a curator and/or author. A click on "news" is the search links automatically provided above finds plenty of coverage of exhibitions that she has curated. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell those are brief quotes and passing mentions. What is needed is significant coverage about her in multiple sources. I generally consider at least three articles each with several paragraphs discussing the person to be a minimum threshold. That can vary though. For instance a major feature article and some smaller mentions may also work. This is, of course, my personal opinion and others can, and do, disagree. Jbh ^Talk 17:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't given an opinion about keeping or deleting in this case. As well as the sources I have cited in the article there are several other major publications with similar coverage of the "Alles Kannibalen“ exhibition at the me Collectors Room Berlin and some Azerbaijani news sources about Zwingenberger's championing of the artist Maryam Alakbarli. In each case the coverage is of Zwingenberger's work, rather than about her favourite colour or the name of her pet cat. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about her work, the impact she has on the profession etc is all fine. There just needs to be more than a blurb in a bigger article. All this AfD means is that, in my opinion, the sources in the article and those I can locate do not demonstrate she meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. If there are some sources out there which you can either add to the article or list here I am more than happy to reassess my judgment. If new sources change my mind before someone else !votes Delete I can just withdraw my nomination and close this early myself. Jbh ^Talk 18:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found some other internet material in French if that helps: https://www.editions-eres.com/nos-auteurs/61622/zwingenberger-jeanette / http://aicafrance.org/portrait-de-jeanette-zwingenberger/ https://www.amazon.com/Jeanette-Zwingenberger/e/B009IML442 / http://www.archivesdelacritiquedart.org/auteur/zwingenberger-jeanette / http://www.daviot.net/textes/publications/zwingenberger.php Valueyou (talk) 07:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking but, from what I can tell, those are all web site/organization biography pages not media coverage. The kind of sources which are needed to show notability must be independent of the subject; have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy; and, most importantly be published. For instance in a book, newspaper or a journal review of her work. Please see WP:IS and WP:RS for more about sourcing and WP:GNG, WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR for more about notability criteria.

Another possibility would be to locate several independent reviews of her books. Books need two significant independent reviews to be notable (see WP:NBOOK). Often there is enough biographical material in several reviews to show notability of the author.

I will continue to look for sources as well. I prefer keeping an article to deleting one but without adequate source material to work from we can not have a good, neutral article. WP:BLP requires sourcing for biographies of living people. WP:V requires that information be tracible to a reliable source. Wikipedia bases its notability criteria on those requirements. It is an imperfect system but it is what we have. Jbh ^Talk 11:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley: I found a couple of sources and added them, but I think there may be more sources in German and French. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl: I think the review her book [1] shows a possibility there would be other material out there. Although, I do not find the mentions of what she has curated useful from a wiki-notable point of view. As the article stands I am iffy on her notability, maybe the book could satisfy WP:PROF#1 but a single review is a bit thin. Since academics are notoriously hard to source, I am OK with this being closed No consensus to give a more time to find sources. You are welcome to close it as such or you can ping me and I will. Either way I guess it could be considered an IAR 'Speedy NC' rather than 'Speedy Keep'. I can't in good conscience withdraw since I am not convinced she will pass notability but I have a good faith belief she might. Jbh ^Talk 19:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley: Yeah, that's kind of where I'm at right now, too. She seems notable, but I couldn't find any other RS to add. Ipigott is a polyglot, so maybe he can find something we've missed. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she's been covered in the French press. I've added a snippet to the article.--Ipigott (talk) 06:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see she has written 41 works in 84 publications in 3 languages and 1,075 library holdings. [2]. Lonehexagon (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a female art academic, the subject is never likely to pass the WP:GNG. The applicable SNG is, as pointed out above, WP:PROF and the reliable sources linked indicate that she qualifies under multiple prongs of that guideline. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Eggishorn: Which PROF criteria do you believe she passes and why? A bare assertion does not really help. Thanks. Jbh ^Talk 21:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 18:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the significant international media attention to her curation now demonstrated in the article (from Taipei Times to La Croix), and the published book review now included, give (barely) enough published in-depth coverage to pass. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 08:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per recent article improvements. Notability has been sufficiently demonstrated and is derived from the reception of her work as an arts curator. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.