Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Péter Fülöp (ceramist)

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. Consensus is that there is not yet enough significant coverage to write an article on this person. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Péter Fülöp (ceramist)

Péter Fülöp (ceramist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Indications of notability, but I couldn't verify it. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 09:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I spent some time today looking for (and adding) sources to help support the text. While these sources seem to support some of the text, I'm not sure that many/all support notability (most news sources are passing mentions, where the subject and the subject's work are mentioned in a discussion about a broader/other primary topic). I'll try and take another look later. But I've not yet come down on one "side" (keep/delete) as yet. (That the article seems to have been created/expanded largely by SPA and likely COI editors doesn't, however, "help".) Guliolopez (talk) 10:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Updated comment. I've found and added yet further sources. In all honesty, and perhaps because I'm just not "with it" in terms of the art scene, I'm not sure I can make either a "keep" or "delete" recommendation. In terms of:

1. WP:GNG, while the subject and his work has been covered in several news sources (Irish Times, Independent News & Media, etc), it's not exactly an avalanche of coverage. In terms of coverage in art sources (Crafts Council of Ireland, Irish Arts Review, Ceramic Review Magazine) I do not know whether the coverage afforded this artist is more than (or less than) what might be afforded any other artist. Such "art world" coverage exists. Whether it is "significant coverage", I couldn't say.
2. WP:NARTIST, while the subject and his work have been a substantial part of several exhibitions and represented within the permanent collections of several museums, whether they are the "significant exhibitions" or "notable galleries" expected by NARTIST, I couldn't say.

Anyway. I'm on the fence. And not sure what would trigger me to get off it. I'm not sure this is cut/dried either way.... Guliolopez (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This [1] is notable. Note his work is held in a national gallery; that alone is significant for any artist and notable. Littleolive oil (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete @Littleolive oil: That reference is a profile written by Peter Fulop himself. It is not a valid source per well established Wikipedia policy? It covered by WP:SPS. It is self-published source, so its non-RS. Looking at the sources above:

• Independent News & Media A small paragraph. Not in-depth.
• Crafts Council of Ireland Portfolio with his name and address. It is a profile written by him.
• Irish Arts Review Can't see anything.
• Ceramic Review Magazine Author : Peter Fulop. Another SPS source. Changed from Comment to Delete . scope_creep^Talk 14:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I realize that it’s not a ref. I was pointing to a significant list of achievements pertaining to the artist. From there each resume point would have to be verified. Wikipedia is poorly designed to judge notability of artists. Often major awards such as a Guggenheim would only be found if the artist listed the award in a CV or resume. I am on a phone with very little time or ability to do this research and my internet connection is sporadic and iffy at best. This artist’s web site indicates significance and so notability but again these are not references nor is this Wikipedia compliant as applies to other topics. I can’t do this research right now, but until we can design Wikipedia to deal with artists I urge not to delete. Littleolive oil

*Comment @Littleolive oil: Remember to sign your comments with the four tildes, so we know who you are. When some article is a WP:SPS, you can't just point to it, and say we can't used that wee bit and that is ok. It can't be done that. All in the information in the article is dud. None of it can be used in any context. There is no half-way house, where you can pick and choose to use. He wrote it, so it is completly unreliable for out viewing and fails WP:NPOV and WP:COI and WP:V. scope_creep^Talk 10:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that's a somewhat uncharitable read of Littleoliveoil's comment; I read their point as being that they likely meet WP:NARTISTS#4, as the biosketch suggests that the subject's work has "been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums". If that information could be verified in other sources (such as database listings of gallery holdings), then the article should be kept. Of course, absent identifying specific notable galleries and identifying sources to verify inclusion, a keep vote is premature. Suriname0 (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. From the url link provided above by Littleolive oil it looks likely that Fülöp meets criteria 4 of WP:ARTIST if we can verify that his work is indeed part of the collections at these major institutions. I am going to ping Possibly who is an expert at navigating museum archives to locate RS to prove this kind of thing through sources independent of the subject. I would suggest the AFD not be closed until Possibly gets back to us.4meter4 (talk) 03:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there is basically nothing out there in RS about this artist. Worse, some claims do not check out. I checked two Irish museum collections that are searchable and claimed to include his work; neither verified the claim. An image search is a good barometer. Péter Fülöp + Ceramic art provides very few images, none of which link back to any kind of RS coverage. The sources in the article are low-quality primary sources, or minor mentions. In short, there is nothing significant available to establish notability, and we must therefore delete. (I was pinged here by 4meter4 to give an assessment, which I have done neutrally.) --- Possibly ☎ 16:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. With no independent RS of significance fails WP:NARTIST and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2021 (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.