Draft talk:Ruben van Schalm

How to improve page if it's about a person

Please guide me where possible. Rockywriter88 (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Reviewing past rejection -- rejection confirmed

@Rockywriter88: I thought I'd give you an in-depth breakdown of my thoughts on this draft and in particular why I stand by rejecting the draft. In short, it has to do with sources or rather, the lack thereof. Before I delve into the reasoning, however, from your editing history it appears you created your account and this submission for the single purpose of getting an article about Ruben van Schalm placed on Wikipedia. If you have a conflict of interest, if you are Ruben, his agent, a family member, or someone Ruben paid to get an article about him placed on Wikipedia, you must disclose your conflict of interest to be compliant with the Terms of Use. Please check out both of those links.

Now, for the draft. To pass AfC, a draft has to show a topic is notable, be written in a neutral way, and properly use sourcing and citations. You've done a pretty good job of formatting citations and writing relatively neutral prose, so the issue to focus on becomes the sources themselves and if they show a subject is notable. Notability is demonstrated by the notability guidelines, of which three may apply to the topic of Ruben van Schalm: the general notability guideline, the notability guidelines for people, and the specific notability guideline for artists.

The sources used will show if a topic meets the guidelines, and in order to count towards notability, a source must be third-party/secondary (that is, not written by van Schalm or anyone with a conflict of interest related to van Schalm, either personal or financial), independent (that is, not paid for by van Schalm or published in a publication owned by van Schalm/his family), published (that is, made available for the public, through either free or paid means), reliable (that is, meets the requirements set out in the reliable sources guidelines, especially for biographies of living people), and show significant coverage of van Schalm. "Significant coverage" is hard to define but generally should show the topic of van Schalm is actually discussed in the sources rather than simply a passing mention. A good rule of thumb is, at minimum, three paragraphs on the topic shows significant coverage.

When considering if a topic is notable, we generally want to look for the three best sources available on that topic, though special criteria, as is the case for artists, may apply.

As an additional note, the Library Collections section is not appropriate for Wikipedia per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. A directory of libraries carrying his book is not encyclopedic content. The various sections on collections and exhibitions should be removed and the content converted to prose in Career and collaborations.

Okay, all that said, let's break down the sourcing:

Extended content

Winq – I don't see anything that indicates this meets WP:RS. No corrections policy, editorial policy, editorial team, none of the usual hallmarks we look for. Does not count. Mako – interviews like these are not considered to be independent, and so this does not meet the criteria Gayety – written by van Schalm. Does not count. RKD entry – this isn't really "coverage" of van Schalm and does not meet requirements for significant coverage. Does not count. Artdoc – Written by van Schalm. Does not count. Rijksmuseum Research Library – this is a catalog entry for his book. Does not count. Paradise – this is his book. Does not count. The Eye of Photography – I will admit, I cannot fully access this source, but the portion I can read of it indicates to me it is about his book, not him. I'll give it the benefit of the doubt though, and call it a soft count. Artibooks – It is unclear what this source is supposed to be showing. From the title, it appears to be a different link to his book. The site is set to private, and no longer meets the requirement that the material be published. Does not count. Pf Fotografie Magazine – this is brief blurb about Paradise and some photos. Not SIGCOV, does not count Same as Eyes of Photography, above. Does not count. Musée – this is solely about the book. It'd be a good source for that, but it doesn't really tell us anything about van Schalm. I don't think this is SIGCOV of Ruben himself. Does not count. Foreword – this is the foreword of his book. Does not count. BFA – it's not clear why this is here. This site just sells photos. It is not an RS and does not count Art Magazine – It's not clear to me "Art Magazine" is the name of this publication. At any rate, van Schalm's name only appears as a photo credit in this. Does not count. Museum of Avant-garde – This is the trickiest source of them all. It is not clear to me that this museum is a "notable gallery or museum" as required by WP:ARTIST 4d, particularly given the lack of secondary sourcing about the museum, but I am not willing to rule out that it is in fact a notable museum. The museum website also does not make it clear that van Schalm's photos are in the museum's permanent collection, I'd leave that call to other editors more in touch with the art world, but consider this a soft count for 4d. Notably, 4d requires "several" permanent installations, so 4d is not totally satisfied. Same Rijksmuseum entry. Does not count. A different book catalog entry. Does not count. Ibid Ibid Ibid. Unclear what was to be linked in the database, but the database does not count as "coverage". Does not count. Another book catalog entry. Does not count. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. This is the website for an Amsterdam art festival with van Schalm's old entry in it. Here again, I don't want to pass judgment on if this counts as a "significant exhibition" as required by WP:ARTIST 4b, but I feel more strongly that this does not qualify than I do about the Museum of Avant-garde. I would say this does not count. Eye of Photography on BOYS! BOYS! BOYS! announcement – I assume this mentions van Schalm's work being included in the exhibit. I am also not sure this qualifies as a significant exhibit due to a lack of sourcing in general about the exhibit. If other editors feel differently I could be swayed, but I don't believe this meets 4b. Groot Hellevoet – There is very little about van Schalm in this and I don't think this site qualifies as a reliable source. Not SIGCOV and not an RS, does not count. I, Amsterdam – this link is broken and is not archived. From what I can gather from the URL, it appears to be a calendar entry for an exhibition generally, and would not have SIGCOV of van Schalm. I also do not believe the exhibition is "notable" given the lack of coverage and wouldn't contribute to satisfying WP:ARTIST 4b. Haute Photographie Amsterdam – it's not totally clear to me how this relates to van Schalm. I don't see his name on the sales pages. Regardless, web stores are not considered to be reliable. Does not count. Art Benelux – this link is broken and is not archived. From what I can gather from the URL, it appears to be a calendar entry for an exhibition generally, and would not have SIGCOV of van Schalm. I also do not believe the exhibition is "notable" given the lack of coverage and wouldn't contribute to satisfying WP:ARTIST 4b. Another book catalog entry. Does not count. Another book catalog entry. Does not count. Another book catalog entry. Does not count. Another book catalog entry. Does not count. BOYS! BOYS! BOYS! Catalog – van Schalm's name appears once in a general list of featured photographers and is not otherwise in the book. Does not count. Fotografiska New York – This is an event listing. Does not count.

Here's the short version of my assessment: nothing in the provided sourcing indicates van Schalm meets the requirements of the notability guidelines. None of the sourcing provided goes into any great detail about van Schalm himself, and even his book receives very little secondary coverage. Filling the references with links to entries in university library catalogs does not prove that van Schalm is notable, nor does it say anything about his book other than libraries purchased it. At best, he begins to qualify under WP:ARTIST 4b, but another editor would need to confirm that his work is indeed in a permanent collection, and even if it is, the requirements are for "several notable" permanent collections to house his work, and that requirement has not been shown to be met with this draft.

Thus, even with the changes made since my last rejection, this draft still does not demonstrate any kind of notability, and independent searches aren't turning up any useful sourcing. If some really significant sourcing comes out about van Schalm in the future – specifically about him, like a profile in a big newspaper or magazine – revisiting this draft is possible. I maintain my position on rejecting this draft. Sorry, I know this probably isn't what you want to hear. Cheers M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 02:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Dear @M4V3R1CK32

Thank you for your thorough review. I value your guidance on refining the draft to align with Wikipedia's standards.

Conflict of Interest: I confirm that I have no personal or financial relationship with Ruben van Schalm. As someone who admires his contributions to photography and the arts, I am aware of the importance of neutrality and have endeavored to ensure the draft adheres strictly to Wikipedia’s guidelines.

Source Quality and Notability: I acknowledge the need for more robust sources. In pursuit of this, I have found a recent interview on Gayety’s Substack which provides significant insights into van Schalm’s work and artistic philosophy. I am aware of the concerns regarding Substack’s general reliability, and I will corroborate the information with additional sources from established art journals and major publications that comply with the notability guidelines for artists.

Content Structuring: Following your advice, I have removed the Library Collections section, as it was not suitable per WP

. I am currently revising the content to better integrate information about his collections and exhibitions into the Career and collaborations section in a more encyclopedic style.

Request for Further Guidance: Could you please advise on the types of sources that best demonstrate notability for artists? Your expertise would be invaluable as I work to enhance the draft.

Conclusion: I am committed to enhancing the article to meet Wikipedia’s standards and look forward to your continued guidance.

Best,

@Rockywriter88 Rockywriter88 (talk) 12:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Rockywriter88, about "a recent interview on Gayety’s Substack"--I don't get it. Why would you "corroborate" what you find in an interview with "additional sources from established art journals and major publications"? Why don't you start with journals and publications? Drmies (talk) 12:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for raising that point! I included the interview from Gayety’s Substack to provide fresh, firsthand insights directly from Ruben van Schalm. I've also just added two new citations in the Early Life section and plan to complement this with established art journals and major publications to ensure the information adheres to Wikipedia's strict standards for reliability and notability. Rockywriter88 (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

But we don't need "fresh, firsthand insights". We need basic facts and statements that establish his notability, not interviews. Why didn't you start with the "established art journals" months ago? Drmies (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand these edits at all. Two of them are databases of sorts and really shouldn't be used. Does that Eye of Photography thing not verify the name, the place of birth, and more? The piece in Groot Hellevoet is a typical non-neutral local news item, all laudatory and with content probably supplied by the subject. But we're almost two years in and very basic facts of his biography are still questionable/unreferenced: that is not a good sign. Drmies (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, @Drmies. I understand your concerns, and I’m in the process of refining the article to ensure it meets Wikipedia's notability and reliability standards, using more established sources. If you have any specific suggestions or edits in mind, your expertise would be very helpful, and I encourage you to make improvements directly where you see fit. Collaboration will only help improve the quality of the article further. Rockywriter88 (talk) 13:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Rockywriter88, why am I thinking that you are using ChatGPT or something like that to write these boilerplate responses with platitudes like that last sentence? Yes, I have specific suggestions: cite proper secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Career and Collaborations

Van Schalm began his photography career in 2012, specializing in black-and-white photography that explores the male form in relation to the natural environment. His work has been described as capturing themes of vulnerability and strength, focusing on the relationship between humanity and the natural world. Van Schalm’s photography has been exhibited internationally, including at major venues such as the Kunstrai Art Fair in Amsterdam and Haute Photographie in Rotterdam.

In 2020, Van Schalm published Paradise, a limited-edition photography book featuring a collection of black-and-white and color images. The series, which includes work created in the Philippines, French Polynesia, and Israel, reflects themes of human interaction with nature. The book has been positively received in publications such as Musee Magazine, which praised its evocative depiction of nature’s dominance over humanity.

Van Schalm’s work has also been featured in respected art publications such as The Eye of Photography Magazine and Winq. These publications highlight his unique approach to fine art photography, particularly his ability to balance the fragility and strength of the human form, a central theme in his work. His collaborations with renowned photographers such as Erwin Olaf and Christopher Makos further underscore his presence within the international art community.

In addition to his published work and collaborations, Van Schalm’s photographs have been showcased in several high-profile exhibitions. In 2023, he participated in the BOYS! BOYS! BOYS! group exhibition at The Little Black Gallery in Sydney during World Pride. In 2022, his work was part of the The Future is Here group exhibition at Kahmann Gallery in Amsterdam. These exhibitions demonstrate Van Schalm’s growing recognition within the global art world.

Sources

1. Redactie Winq. "Uit de kunst". Winq NL.
2. Photographie, L'Œil de la. "Ruben van Schalm". The Eye of Photography Magazine.
3. Phearse, Terrence. "Paradise: Ruben van Schalm". Musee Magazine.
4. Eldovi, Tomer. "הקורונה עוזרת לי להעריך עוד יותר את מה שכבר הערכתי כל חיי". Mako.
5. "Ruben van Schalm". The Independent Photographer.
6. Winq NL
7. "BOYS! BOYS! BOYS!". The Little Black Gallery.
8. "The Future is Here". Kahmann Gallery.

----

@M4V3R1CK32

This draft based on your feedback uses reliable, third-party sources that provide significant coverage of Ruben van Schalm's career, including his exhibitions and collaborations. The sources, such as Musee Magazine, The Eye of Photography, Winq, and The Independent Photographer, are reputable, independent publications that support his notability. The draft adheres to Wikipedia’s guidelines for neutrality and verifiability.

Could you kindly provide feedback to ensure it meets all criteria for approval? Thank you! Rockywriter88 (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Rockywriter88: I'll give this one last look, but nothing I am seeing indicates to me that what you have presented solves the fundamental sourcing issue. This updated text also does not have inline citations, so I don't where exactly these citations are being used and what information they purport to support. Citation integrity is really important, especially for articles about living people. We have a responsibility to show where the information comes from, and I cannot give this a "pass" without knowing where the sources are being used and what they are being used for.

This updated draft does not show the notability or sourcing required to consider this draft. At this point, I am fairly certain such sourcing does not exist. Tips for looking for sourcing: Look for a story/article about van Schalm that is not a Q&A, is written by someone who puts their name on the piece (a byline), and is in a big publication for general audiences such as a large Dutch newspaper or Dutch public radio. I can't give you any specifics, I don't know enough about Dutch media. The sources do not need to be in English nor free to access, but they should be published by reputable outlets and not written by van Schalm. As Drmies mentioned, established art journals (think more like an academic publication than a photography magazine) discussing van Schalm's work could also be helpful, arguably far more helpful, when establishing his position in the art world.

I don't intend to further discuss this, it has already taken up more time than I wanted to give it. In general, I would suggest looking at articles in WP:WikiProject Art and how they are constructed, helping out there, dipping your toes in, and doing The Wikipedia Adventure to get a better feel for how Wikipedia works. Creating an article is pretty difficult, as you've seen, and choosing that as your first foray into Wikipedia is a massive challenge. I'd recommend starting small and working your way up. Good luck, bon voyage, and have fun. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 14:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @M4V3R1CK32 I will continue working on it and will ask you in a few months again to be so kind to have a look again. thanks for your advice on this. Rockywriter88 (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts on the draft:

Extended content

The text itself: Van Schalm began his photography career in 2012, specializing in black-and-white photography that explores the male form in relation to the natural environment. His work has been described as capturing themes of vulnerability and strength, focusing on the relationship between humanity and the natural world. Van Schalm’s photography has been exhibited internationally, including at major venues such as the Kunstrai Art Fair in Amsterdam and Haute Photographie in Rotterdam. In 2020, Van Schalm published Paradise, a limited-edition photography book featuring a collection of black-and-white and color images. The series, which includes work created in the Philippines, French Polynesia, and Israel, reflects themes of human interaction with nature. The book has been positively received in publications such as Musee Magazine, which praised its evocative depiction of nature’s dominance over humanity. Van Schalm’s work has also been featured in respected art publications such as The Eye of Photography Magazine and Winq. These publications highlight his unique approach to fine art photography, particularly his ability to balance the fragility and strength of the human form, a central theme in his work. His collaborations with renowned photographers such as Erwin Olaf and Christopher Makos further underscore his presence within the international art community. In addition to his published work and collaborations, Van Schalm’s photographs have been showcased in several high-profile exhibitions. In 2023, he participated in the BOYS! BOYS! BOYS! group exhibition at The Little Black Gallery in Sydney during World Pride. In 2022, his work was part of the The Future is Here group exhibition at Kahmann Gallery in Amsterdam. These exhibitions demonstrate Van Schalm’s growing recognition within the global art world. Notes I wish I knew why my notelist isn't working. Anyway, the sources: Winq -- as established, not a reliable source. Does not contribute to notability. I wouldn't even include it in this draft, BLPs have to be supported by reliable sources. Eye of Photography -- eh... maybe. soft count. Musée – this is solely about the book. It'd be a good source for that, but it doesn't really tell us anything about van Schalm. I don't think this is SIGCOV of Ruben himself. Does not count. Mako – interviews like these are not considered to be independent, and so this does not meet the criteria. It's fine for some basic facts, but does not contribute to notability. The Independent Photographer -- this is an about the author page and so blatantly promotional it was clearly written by Ruben. Does not count on both counts. Winq -- see above Exhibition listing -- does not count Exhibition listing -- does not count

M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 14:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)