Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cat Palmer (artist)

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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Palmer (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Vanispamcruftisement for non notable artist WuhWuzDat 18:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This artist has had some coverage in local media but that's all. Doesn't meet the general notability guidelines. E. Fokker (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, autobio spam; the spam has been largely cut out, but all that's left is a resume entry. Hairhorn (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article meets WP:BIO through WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. Yes, it will require improvement and expansion, but such looks to be emminently do-able Author has just been cautioned to understand WP:COI. And since author asserts to not being the subject of the article, she has been advised on how a username might be changed.[1][2] Following the confusing steps in changing a username is not something a newcomer would be expected to know or understand, so perhaps some passing admin will assist her? Article is now under work for expansion. Wikipedia does not expect not demand that an award-winning Utah artist must have worldwide coverage. That an artist notable in and to Utah has extensive and enduring significant coverage IN Utah media is fine. Artistic notability in Utah is not like winning a neighborhood bake sale. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't meet WP:ARTIST and what coverage there is does not impress me as far as WP:GNG is concerned. Like 1000s of other local artists. freshacconci talktalk 02:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  This article is not about 1000s of other "local" artists, just this one who meets WP:GNG. We can address those other articles if or when they are written. Treating Utah as a backwater or Utah artists as cultural pariahs is not what policy or guideline mandate. Meeting the GNG is meeting the GNG, until it is rewritten, not liking "local" artists nothwithstanding. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm afraid you've misunderstood me. Which is understandable, since I wasn't clear. I have nothing against local artists--we're all local to some place. Nor do I consider any place a "backwater" (although I don't seem to see where I say that or disparage Utah in any way). I just feel that WP:ARTIST is clear on the level of notability and this artist has not made the leap to national let alone international notability. As a local artist, her notability does not seem to be beyond the trivial. Simply put, she's not ready for an encyclopedia article. This is not a judgment on her as an artist. When I consider my !vote in these matters, I try to avoid looking at the art so as to not influence my opinion. freshacconci talktalk 13:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Vanispamcruftisement for non notable artist seems unnecessarily gleeful. -- Hoary (talk) 03:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – article has changed since AfD was proposed and improvements continue; the cryptic grounds for deletion in WuhWuzDat’s portmanteau neologism no longer apply. The subject clearly satisfies WP:GNG as this photographer “has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject”. As well as the independent awards she has received, recent works have been the subject of “multiple independent periodical articles or reviews”, and she satisfies WP:ARTIST. The creator of the article has clarified that she is not the subject (on the article’s talk page), and the initial lack of references has been addressed; work continues on the formatting of the article and the balance of subject matter. I am in no doubt that this subject satisfies Wikipedia’s criteria for inclusion, and that it can be progressively improved into an encyclopaedic article. — Hebrides (talk) 11:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • • See Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement. WuhWuzDat 18:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just to be clear: which part of WP:ARTIST does she satisfy? freshacconci talktalk 13:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting rationale: Per changes that have occurred since the beginning of this AfD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Schmidt, Hebrides. Edward321 (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2011 (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.