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.
Fails
WP:BIO and
WP:NARTIST. Cursory check on Google news returns one trivial mention, and scholar.google.com returns a number of articles with trivial mentions. Nothing significant by the subject. Article was created by a contributor with connection to Richmond Artists Association. Article subject as well as the contributor have both served as the president for RAA.
Graywalls (
talk)
21:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment - If the collections prove to be verifiable, then she would pass NARTIST on that basis. As the article stands, the citation for these collections is not verifiable. Could check the institutions to see if they have their collections online.
Netherzone (
talk)
22:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Museums sometimes do not have the money to get all the metadata for the objects they hold into searchable digital form. For example if they pay someone $25 an hour to digitize material, and they have 1000 objects that take two hours each, then that is $50,000. See
this source from July 2017.
ThatMontrealIP (
talk)
00:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep I found a source for the VMFA collection, meaning she meets
WP:ARTIST. There are also more than a few decent additional sources out there. As Graywalls says, the article was recently edited by a now-blocked COI editor, so it may need cleaning up.
ThatMontrealIP (
talk)
00:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)reply
and where else? "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums."
Graywalls (
talk)
00:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)reply
PS: I once suggested we change that from several to "two or more", but it was pointed out that it was intentionally vague to prevent gaming the system. Anyway, she is in two confirmed collections and therefore meets WP:ARTIST.
ThatMontrealIP (
talk)
00:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Graywalls, that's actually fairly straightforward, but any attempts to establish a notability guideline for art galleries that I've been involved in have been thwarted by editors who insist that art galleries are no different from green grocers. If you're really interested, we can talk about how to determine notability by objective measures. I'm just, really, really sure that the community will never accept such a guideline.
Vexations (
talk)
12:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)reply
comment so I'm not firmly insisting a position for deletion at this point; however I do challenge the line of argument that appearing in an inventory of liquidation or estate sale of this nature automatically gives a Wikinotable cred to anyone and everyone who appears in an inventory list. This bankruptcy auction was notable, because of some notable contents. I would argue that it would be hinging in
inherited notability, which for orgs/companies is explicitly denounced, however, other notability guidelines are silent on. This could merit further discussion elsewhere.
Graywalls (
talk)
18:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure I see where you are coming from. All other !keep voters have basically agreed that the two collections (VMFA and Chrysler Museum) mean she meets
WP:NARTIST. This is in line with established criteria that we apply all the time for artists. So objecting to that is to some degree rejecting established criteria.
ThatMontrealIP (
talk)
19:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Technically it could be, as she was in the collection once, making three collections ("once notable, always notable"). But even without it she meets the "several notable collections" guideline of WP:ARTIST.
ThatMontrealIP (
talk)
19:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep I'm not super-convinced, I don't like the work, and the COI editing is seriously off-putting, but there is sufficient material in reliable sources to sustain a stubby bio, and the inclusion of her work in two museum collections is supporting evidence that professionals with relevant experience in the field have critically engaged with her work (that's another way of saying that someone who knows what they're doing decided the work was important).
Vexations (
talk)
12:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep and special praise for
ThatMontrealIP for finding that VMFA citation. I went looking when the AfD was posted, but couldn't find it. I agree with
Vexations that the article's origins, and status at nomination were pretty offputting, but I think that ThatMontrealIP has done a very appropriate cleanup.
Theredproject (
talk)
14:35, 17 June 2020 (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.
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.
Fails
WP:BIO and
WP:NARTIST. Cursory check on Google news returns one trivial mention, and scholar.google.com returns a number of articles with trivial mentions. Nothing significant by the subject. Article was created by a contributor with connection to Richmond Artists Association. Article subject as well as the contributor have both served as the president for RAA.
Graywalls (
talk)
21:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment - If the collections prove to be verifiable, then she would pass NARTIST on that basis. As the article stands, the citation for these collections is not verifiable. Could check the institutions to see if they have their collections online.
Netherzone (
talk)
22:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Museums sometimes do not have the money to get all the metadata for the objects they hold into searchable digital form. For example if they pay someone $25 an hour to digitize material, and they have 1000 objects that take two hours each, then that is $50,000. See
this source from July 2017.
ThatMontrealIP (
talk)
00:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep I found a source for the VMFA collection, meaning she meets
WP:ARTIST. There are also more than a few decent additional sources out there. As Graywalls says, the article was recently edited by a now-blocked COI editor, so it may need cleaning up.
ThatMontrealIP (
talk)
00:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)reply
and where else? "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums."
Graywalls (
talk)
00:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)reply
PS: I once suggested we change that from several to "two or more", but it was pointed out that it was intentionally vague to prevent gaming the system. Anyway, she is in two confirmed collections and therefore meets WP:ARTIST.
ThatMontrealIP (
talk)
00:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Graywalls, that's actually fairly straightforward, but any attempts to establish a notability guideline for art galleries that I've been involved in have been thwarted by editors who insist that art galleries are no different from green grocers. If you're really interested, we can talk about how to determine notability by objective measures. I'm just, really, really sure that the community will never accept such a guideline.
Vexations (
talk)
12:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)reply
comment so I'm not firmly insisting a position for deletion at this point; however I do challenge the line of argument that appearing in an inventory of liquidation or estate sale of this nature automatically gives a Wikinotable cred to anyone and everyone who appears in an inventory list. This bankruptcy auction was notable, because of some notable contents. I would argue that it would be hinging in
inherited notability, which for orgs/companies is explicitly denounced, however, other notability guidelines are silent on. This could merit further discussion elsewhere.
Graywalls (
talk)
18:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure I see where you are coming from. All other !keep voters have basically agreed that the two collections (VMFA and Chrysler Museum) mean she meets
WP:NARTIST. This is in line with established criteria that we apply all the time for artists. So objecting to that is to some degree rejecting established criteria.
ThatMontrealIP (
talk)
19:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Technically it could be, as she was in the collection once, making three collections ("once notable, always notable"). But even without it she meets the "several notable collections" guideline of WP:ARTIST.
ThatMontrealIP (
talk)
19:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep I'm not super-convinced, I don't like the work, and the COI editing is seriously off-putting, but there is sufficient material in reliable sources to sustain a stubby bio, and the inclusion of her work in two museum collections is supporting evidence that professionals with relevant experience in the field have critically engaged with her work (that's another way of saying that someone who knows what they're doing decided the work was important).
Vexations (
talk)
12:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep and special praise for
ThatMontrealIP for finding that VMFA citation. I went looking when the AfD was posted, but couldn't find it. I agree with
Vexations that the article's origins, and status at nomination were pretty offputting, but I think that ThatMontrealIP has done a very appropriate cleanup.
Theredproject (
talk)
14:35, 17 June 2020 (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.