Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara E. Mink

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.

The result was delete. the consensus after two relistings is that she does not meet the notability standard DGG ( talk ) 10:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara E. Mink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP for Ithaca, NY artist who has only been covered locally. I'm reasonably certain this fails notability but would like to hear others' thoughts. Pinging @Hmlarson: for the counterpoint. -Jergling _{PC Load Letter} 18:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable artist with no more than local recognition.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A well known figure in the arena. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sourabhpaul1986 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This keep argument is meritless and comes from a likely WP:SPA/sock. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete instead as I found no actual major museum collections and what's suggested in the article as that is actually vague hence delete, as none of this amounts to genuine substance. SwisterTwister talk 04:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nothing in GNG says that local coverage isn't a RS. She's been covered in RS in NY and Ithica in particular over time and non-trivially. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No need for museum collection to pass WP:ARTIST. She has quite a strong coverage, through local, so she's passing WP:ARTIST 4(c) and since she exhibited on local level, but with known local galleries, 4(d) as well. As Megalibrarygirl said, local coverage is okay. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This local coverage is so local that the main publication which had articles about her, Ithaca Times, does not even have a Wikipedia article. I respectfully disagree with User:Arthistorian1977 that the coverage as present passes ARTIST 4c (significant coverage), and 4d (since the part about where here works are displayed is poorly referenced), and the only institution named that has her collection is another seemingly non-notable body, State of the Art Gallery at Ithaca (also, the article states "where she has been a member-artist" which suggests COI - she is a co-organizer/worker/etc. there, so she likely gets preferential treatment there - no proof her works were displayed anywhere else). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just local coverage of a minor nature. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete The coverage here is a bit too local. Heck, there is nothing in NYTimes or NYPost or any of the more notable New York publications. I do not see any collections in galleries of notable museums or any other WP:ARTIST pass. In addition, the Ithaca Times seems to be a local community newspaper and these cannot be useful for GNG - otherwise as someone said, their dog would become notable for chewing the gardens in the neighbourhood. The problem with local sources is that they can be influenced and often give a disproportionate amount of importance to a certain topic. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2016 (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.