Deletion of Barbara Meneley

Comment: not enough in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources to show they pass 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I agree with DGG that the subject of the article is not notable.   cites as evidence of notability that the artist should have pieces in permanent collections, or at least "significant critical attention".  Mere discussion in local press does not rise to the level of significant critical attention demanded by this guideline.  Further evidence of lack of notability is the lack of GS hits, as DGG also notes
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CREATIVE)

Comment: Many of the comments here amount to . I think that these editathons, in the end, will have been detrimental to WP because, rather than having a mission of building an encyclopedia (meaning an organized set of articles on ''encyclopedic toipics''), their purpose is essentially political. That is to say the goal is to create articles on people that some group feels is under-represented, rather than letting the organic process of article creation happen naturally. The result, in many cases, is a raft of new bios on increasingly obscure individuals. This phenomenon and others like it (e.g. paid editing) are gradually reducing WP to nothing more than an |online directory
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT||WP:NOTDIRECTORY)

Comment: There is some in-depth coverage of this artist in a local newspaper, for instance http://leaderpost.com/entertainment/local-arts/barbara-meneleys-prairie-history-redux-is-an-artistic-reflection-of-saskatchewans-complex-history. If we had more sources like this, from a wider range of higher-profile publications, I think this could be a keep, but I searched but couldn't find them. Instead we have (no doubt added in good faith by new editors who didn't know better) a lot of : material by the subject rather than about the subject or her works, exhibit announcements rather than exhibit reviews, multiple copies of the same text in differently-published exhibit announcements indicating that it is most likely from the artist rather than written independently, etc. I don't think it's enough for . And although I am sympathetic to the idea that we should be nice to new editors and/or try to combat systemic bias, I don't think that filling out our categories with low-notability articles is the right way to do that. The lesson for future edit-a-thons should be: put more care into the selection of topics rather than encouraging new editors who don't know our standards to pick topics which are likely to be quickly deleted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipuffery (WP:WIKIPUFFERY||WP:ARTIST)