Meyer Ryshpan: Sources are user-generated, primary sources or trivial coverage (the phone book??).  BEFORE search turns up no other evidence of notability as an artist or generally.  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 00:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Very trivial coverage found [7] .  No listing in the Getty ULAN [8] , the artist hasn't gained critical recognition, with no sourcing in Gscholar found...  The person existed, but that's not what we're looking for in a notability guideline.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 04:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Poland , Canada , Connecticut ,  and New York .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:HEY .  I added three RS to the article.  While cleaning up, I deleted all the unsourced and unnecessary material, and re-formatted two references.  I think the article should be kept largely due to Ryshpan's regular exhibitions at the Montreal of Museum of Fine Arts, and his entry in A Dictionary of Canadian Artists.  There is also non-trivial coverage of his 1958 retrospective.  It passes WP:GNG with at least two reliable sources.  Curiocurio ( talk ) 14:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article is definitely improved and I thank you for taking that on! but I question the use of MacDonald's dictionary to validate notability.  It doesn't appear to be selective but rather inclusive of any artist (the volume Ryshpan is listed is just Canadian artists with last names R-S, that single volume is over 500 pages long, and Ryshpan warrants a single paragraph).  Meanwhile, the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts exhibitions were not selective nor were they exclusive to Ryshpan.  The spring exhibition was for many decades an exhibition open to all artists and often included 400-500 works (see page 2 of the source you provided).  That leaves a short reference in Ayre's art column, and I frankly disagree that this is enough.  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 15:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The main point is that three reliable sources are enough to get over WP:GNG , not WP:NARTIST .  Curiocurio ( talk ) 16:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Right, the question is whether a phone-book-length non-selective directory and an exhibition summary for a non-selective, open-to-all art exhibition constitute "significant coverage" for GNG.  I'm skeptical.  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 17:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A Dictionary of Canadian Artists has been completed by the National Gallery of Canada, so it's hardly just a directory.  Curiocurio ( talk ) 17:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  00:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:HEY - This Montreal painter and engraver has an artistic background that deserves to be known.  This biographical summary is well referenced.  Veillg1 ( talk ) 15:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Does the article clean up and new sources added since its nomination change anyone's opinion about notability here?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Source 5 is about artworks displayed in a library, I'm still not sure that meets notability requirements.  The Canadian artist dictionary is fine, but it's still a small mention.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Looking through the history of the article, it looks like is was created as a memorial to a beloved member of the Montreal community.  It was then edited down to try to comply with WP:ARTIST .  Unfortunately I think the subject fails WP:NBIO and WP:ARTIST .  The posthumous retrospective at the local library cannot count towards notability.  See the essay WP:MEMORIAL .  -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 18:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The retrospective at the library wasn't posthumous, the artist was still alive. It counts toward WP:GNG , the bar it has to clear. Curiocurio ( talk ) 20:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I stand corrected. The retrospective was when the artist was living. Regardless, it does not count towards notability.-- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 20:32, 27 May 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus