Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Castaneda/reiman

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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Castaneda/reiman

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non notable duo of contemporary artists. All of the references are dead. Has non notable awards for the duo. Fails WP:ARTIST, and WP:GNG. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 22:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep I saw a few in-depth sources in Google Book snippets, and many more general mentions in a web search.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

changing to plain old Keep. Looking at their CV, it's clear that SIGCOV exists but we do not have access to many of the articles, which occur in Flash Art, Art in Ammerica, San Francisco newspapers and so on.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect most of the coverage on their CV is event listings, and reviews of their exhibitions, such as these ones quoted from the San Francisco Chronicle [1], [2], [3]. Whether that gives you enough information to create a biographical article about them, I don't know. Richard3120 (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the research! I don't know why you would not think reviews like the ones you posted above are not RS: they are an extremely significant contributor to notability of artists. Look also at these items, which I found partially through their CV page and partially through good old search, are more in-depth:

A KQED profile that follows the artists in their studio. This is more than an interview. Eight-minutes of TV coverage is in-depth coverage.
A Flash Art article, circa 1999, shows up as a Google snippet:"Castaneda/Reiman Thomas Healy Collaboration is a fact of life for Charlie Castaneda and Brody Reiman. Forming their alliance in art school, the two women became partners in a construction business, then opened a dog-walking service..."
The book Bay Area Now Two includes coverage on them. Google snippet says "Castaneda/Reiman Castaneda/Reiman is the professional name for a two-woman art team whose beginnings date back to their undergraduate art school days. Their work is an elegant combination of Arte Povera and Minimalism, merging ..."
more coverage is in Artists of Invention: A Century of CCA - Page 139
this 300-word review in SFGATE is not insignificant as it goes into detail on their work,
There is a review in a 1998 issue of Art in America that I do not have access to,
A 1998 volume of The New Art Examiner says this in Google Snippet:"For their first New York show, castaneda/reiman a collaborative team based in San Francisco, converted the gallery space into a ... a very elongated Cornell box, a plus- free-standing Newman zip, and an early Bourgeois sculpture confined to an upright coffin. ..."

So there you are. As much of the coverage is circa 1990, much of it will not be available online. It's easily enough for GNG.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP: I never said the SF Chronicle was not an RS, it certainly is. I was just trying to show that there is access after all to some of those articles quoted on their CV. I simply don't know whether descriptions of their exhibits, rather than biographical detail, counts towards passing WP:ARTIST. Richard3120 (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Descriptions of exhibtions, aka reviews, are the thing all artists look for and one of the main ways to establish notability. If a reviewer thinks a show is worth reviewing and writes about it, that is an independent form of validation akin to a reporter thinking a politician is notable and doing a profile piece. It's tough to get reviewed, and when it happened in good publications, it is a direct contributor to notability. It's really no different than coverage of a subject in a newspaper. Reviewing the "work" also happens in book reviews, and we certainly accept those from reliable publications. WP:ARTIST also mentions "critical attention" and "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", so reviews are definitely valid. I do agree that the subject of the writing (the artworks) can be sometimes arcane though.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, since subject fails WP:CREATIVE. Admirable though the effort to promote artists might be, Wikipedia is not the place for that. -The Gnome (talk) 13:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need further discussion on ThatmontrealIP's sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. They very nearly meet WP:ARTIST #C4, with works in two notable galleries or museums (Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive [4] needs to be added to the article). Of ThatMontrealIP's sources, I note that the SFGATE source is by the same journalist as the three San Francisco Chronicle articles, but the others do appear to be independent of the artists and of each other. Other sources also exist - I also found Bark, with an article 'castaneda/reiman Concrete canines provide foundation for collaborative artists. by Samantha Schoech' [5], and there are probably other sources which are not online. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's close in on those sources. First RebeccaGreen's: The link to the Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive takes us to a dry exhibition listing and nothing more; yet no one disputes they exhibit. Then, there's a write up in a magazine devoted to "the serious dog enthusiast" ("the indispensable guide to life with dogs"), which probably cannot be used as a relevant and significant source. Beyond this all we haveis that there are probably other sources out there" which we can never find though since they are offline. Emphasis added.

Then ThatMontrealIP's sources: Α single, brief mention in the yearly tome of New Art Examiner; a description of the subject's work in an exhibition brochure (Bay Area Now), which is not exactly a reliable source; a duly attributed picture of one painting in the Artists of Invention tome; and we get one acceptable source in the KQED series on artistic collaborations where the subject gets an episode. And that is all, really. The rest are obscure or impossible-to-find sources, much as we are assured that they must be out there.

I truly admire the effort but, at the end of the day, this is yet another art creator trying for space and wider recognition through Wikipedia. But this is not the purpose of this project. Personally, I look for my marginal and not-widely-known artists elsewhere. -The Gnome (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, you've cherry picked the sources and left out Flash Art, Art in America and several others. KQED, for example, is an 8-minute television program that looks in-depth at their work.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My link to the Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive is not to an exhibition: it is to the Art Collection of the museum, ie the permanent collection, which includes work by these artists. As I said, "They very nearly meet WP:ARTIST #C4, with works in two notable galleries or museums" - not exhibitions in galleries or museums, but works in the permanent collections of galleries or museums. As for Bark, WP:GNG says nothing about relevant sources, it says ""Reliable" means that 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." I don't think more sources are necessary anyway - the San Francisco Chronicle, KQED, Flash Art, and Artists of Invention are all "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The sources which we can't access online are allowable per WP:SOURCEACCESS: "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only in university libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives. Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see WikiProject Resource Exchange)." and per Wikipedia:Offline sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to second what RebeccaGreen is saying about her excellent research and the Berkeley museum. Permanent collections are serious indicators of notability. If we find one more, it is automatic notability per WP:ARTIST. The fact that the Berkeley museum is willing to keep an eight foot by 3 foot by 15 inch sculpture in perpetuity means something. Coupled with the reviews here, it's an easy pass for notability.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have now checked Ebsco databases, and found other sources including 'castaneda/reiman at DCKT', Cash, Stephanie. Art in America. March 2004, Vol. 92 Issue 3, p122-123; and 'Castaneda/Reiman', Tanner, Marcia. ARTnews. May 1998, Vol. 97 Issue 5, p177. These are in addition to the sources above. They definitely meet WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2019 (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.