Colleen Brown (artist): As always, creative professionals are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their work exists -- the notability test doesn't hinge on sourcing their work to itself as proof that it exists, it hinges on sourcing their work to external validatation of its significance, through independent third-party reliable source coverage and analysis about them and their work in media and/or books .  But this is referenced almost entirely to directly affiliated primary sources -- the self-published websites of galleries that have exhibited her work, "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of organizations she's associated with, etc.  -- and the only footnotes that represent any kind of third-party coverage are a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person and a single article in the local newspaper of her own hometown, which doesn't represent enough coverage to get her over the bar all by itself.  Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced better than this.  Bearcat ( talk ) 21:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Authors , Women ,  and Canada .  Bearcat ( talk ) 21:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : subject of a 16 minute segment on CBC radio, holds a residency, has exhibited in many exhibitions.  Plus, this well-referenced article seems to be the work of a new editor participating in an editathon, who submitted their work to AfC and had it approved, and has since created another well-referenced biography of a different artist; to delete this would be a slap in the face for a serious new contributor to the encyclopedia.  (I was initially suspicious of COI or paid editing because I noticed that the editor had made 10 varied edits a little while before starting this article, but I note that the artist's name was on the list of "Suggestions for notable artists / writers / curators / contributors, etc. without articles:" at Wikipedia:Meetup/Vancouver/ArtAndFeminism 2024 , so I believe this art historian is a genuine enthusiastic new editor in the field of artist biographies.)  Pam D 11:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Artists do not become notable for having exhibited in gallery shows by sourcing those gallery shows to content self-published by those galleries (as was done here) — artists only become notable for having exhibited in gallery shows if you can source the gallery shows to third-party content about the gallery shows, such as a newspaper or magazine art critic reviewing said show, but not a single gallery show here has cited the correct kind of sourcing to make her notable for that.  And the CBC source is an interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person, which is a kind of source that we're allowed to use for supplementary verification of stray facts in an article that has already passed WP:GNG on stronger sources but not a kind of source we can use to bring the GNG in and of itself, because it isn't independent of her.  And no, articles aren't exempted from having to pass GNG just because they came out of editathons, either: editathons still have to follow the same principles as everybody else, and the articles resulting from them still have to properly source their notability claims.  Bearcat ( talk ) 12:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] While the CBC radio piece is an interview, surely her selection as the subject of an interview in a series on a major radio station is an indicator of notability?   As is her selection for two residencies: the organisations hosting the residencies are independent of the artist, and there are sources from those organisations.  Pam D 21:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The CBC interview is from one of the CBC's local programs on one of its local stations, not from the national network, so it isn't automatically more special than other interviews just because it came from a CBC station instead of a Corus or Pattison or Rogers station.  So it isn't enough to get her over GNG all by itself if it's the only non-primary source she has.  It isn't enough that the organizations hosting the residencies are independent of the artist — they aren't independent of the residency , so they're still affiliated sources.  The source for a residency obviously can't be her own website, but it also can't be the website of the organization that she worked with or for either — it has to be a third party that has no affiliation with either end of that relationship, namely a media outlet writing about the residency as news, because the organization is still affiliated with the statement .  Bearcat ( talk ) 14:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom, reluctantly.  It seems to me I've previously read something about this artist, and her work has been exhibited in well known galleries.  I'm just not finding any additional independent reliable sources beyond the first one in the article.  Willing to change my vote if better sourcing is found.  Curiocurio ( talk ) 22:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning keep per PamD .  This was not a person-picked-off-the-street interview.  BD2412 T 01:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : borderline but I think tagging the article for relying on primary sources might be sufficient without needing to delete the entry.  FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 11:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If primary sources are virtually all it has, then just tagging it for relying on primary sources isn't sufficient — it's not enough to assume that better sources exist that haven't been shown.  Better sources have to be demonstrated to exist, not just speculated about as theoretically possible, in order to tip the balance between an AFD discussion and just being flagged for better sourcing.  Bearcat ( talk ) 14:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] not speculating, read your discussion above with PamD then made my decision.  FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 14:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Subject fails WP:GNG as well as the four criteria set down by WP:NARTIST .  The nominator's report is spot on.  After discarding the interviews and the primary sources, we're left with a non-existent case for inclusion.  Wikipedia is not a directory of artists , nor a collection of indiscriminate information .  And the extensive discussion is rather surprising for such an evidently straightforward issue.  - The Gnome ( talk ) 14:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] why are you discarding the CBC interview?  FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 14:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per the CBC feature, combined with the weight of what seem to be adequate sources.  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 22:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What adequate sources?  I see exactly one.  Curiocurio ( talk ) 00:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  With the Guleph Today piece and CBC coverage, there is non-primary coverage.  Whether aspects of the biography sourced to primary sources are wholly due as paragraphic body text or could be better rendered as a list of works/residences is a content question at the article level rather than an inclusion/deletion question at the encyclopedia level.  Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits ) 08:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Nicely done bio on the notability borderline.  Don't we have more serious things to worry about?  Carrite ( talk ) 16:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom - most of the sources are primary, and not high-quality at that, as they are very promotional.  She has very little reliable third-party coverage.  Swordman97 talk to me 03:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  A dozen warm-up edits then creation of a detailed article with mostly commercial non-archival references.  Article has a cereal-filler claim to notability ("She is primarily known for her sculptural works which incorporate a variety of natural and industrial materials.") This looks like some kind of fan-page or COI.  2600:1700:8650:2C60:89EE:CBB:BDD3:F68E ( talk ) 04:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  08:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I am not finding any RS online to add to the article.  She does exist as an author and artist but fails WP:Artist .  WP:TOOSOON .  -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 01:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] above people mentioned Guleph Today and CBC, both are RS FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 07:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Being mentioned in a RS source does not indicate that the coverage contributes evidence of the subject's notability. I agree with other commenters that this falls short of WP:Artist , her importance in Maple Ridge, British Columbia notwithstanding. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 17:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ♠ PMC ♠ (talk) 02:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - All these guidelines that allow us to say "passed xyz standard", or "fails XYZ standard" is handy to have.   But the fact of the matter is, we have articles like this one, where it should be obvious that this is an accomplished artist.  Maybe she does/or doesn't exactly fit into the guidelines we so love to haul out for our assessment.    Wikipedia has kept stubs and others with far less content and substance than this one.  As far as I'm concerned, her article shows her qualifications to be here.  We get carried away sometimes on one view or the other.   I say she's notable as an artist, and I'm sticking to my perspective on it.  — Maile ( talk ) 03:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I'll concur with Maile66.  I see sufficient anchoring sourcing (Guleph Today and CBC) and plenty of less independent stuff (which may be used to detail the subject once NOTE is met, which I now assert).  Given the usual dearth of direct detailing of visual artists in media, this sourcing is pretty good.  BusterD ( talk ) 14:32, 14 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