Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Frelinghuysen

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 - by consensus. --VS ^talk 08:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Frelinghuysen

Tagged for speedy deletion and contested. There is a clear assertion of notability and this is not a WP:CSD#A7 candidate. Other issues should be considered. Neutral nomination. Chick Bowen 17:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of reliable sources. The three sources cited in the article are from the artist's profiles in the art organizations that she has exhibited her work. These art organizations do not appear to be that notable. A Google News Archive search returns few results and a Google search only returns results from unreliable sources. The only semi-reliable article I could find about this individual is from findarticles.com in which this person is given a trivial mention at the bottom of the article. This artist completely fails WP:BIO. Cunard (talk) 17:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would disagree and say that most of the art organizations like Cranbrook Art Museum (http://www.cranbrookart.edu/museum//), Headlands Center for the Arts (http://www.headlands.org/), and Anderson Ranch Arts Center(http://www.andersonranch.org/workshops/)are highly notable. Sulven (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response: You're right. Those three art organizations are fairly notable but their notability isn't enough to establish the notability of this artist. If you can find a couple reliable sources to establish this artist's notability (from newspapers such as The New York Times or Washington Post), I'm willing to reconsider my vote. Cunard (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response:I think there's enough credibility in Scultpure Space [[1]] profile that links her up to her other exhibitions and displays, among them these three sources. I can't read the wikipedia notability criteria in a way that makes this article "not worthy" of an encyclopedic article as she fulfills several of them cited above, and so is a reliable source linking the artist to the other highly regarded sources. I can't find anything in the NY Times of Washington Post, but neither do I think that is necessary as there are other sources, not as publicly known, but still so in the world of art. She is also a member of a family that actually has its own wikipedia category in which I don't think she can really be subject to exclusion from as it is of public interest, which I think is another reason why she is relevant for a wikipedia article. Sulven (talk) 20:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response: The link you provided is not a reliable source. It is from one of the sites that she is affiliated with. Third-party sources will provide verifiability and notability for her. Furthermore, even though her family has a category, notability is not inherited. Her family members might be notable, but "the fact that she has famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article." I've tried to find reliable sources for this artist but couldn't find any. I just don't see how she passes WP:BIO. Cunard (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Cunard. Insufficient coverage by independent reliable sources to satisfy WP:CREATIVE. No reviews of her work in the newsmedia that I could find, nothing in googlenews[2]. Nsk92 (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response Too bad as they say. No one except Cunard said notability is inherited, I just find it relevant and interesting within the context of being an actual artist on your own merit, and being from a known artist family, there is a major difference which I think is a point that wasn't considered here. It's kind of a shame that administrators would narrow criteria for articles to more than what seems within the limits of them (even if they seem to have good enough reason. The article did no harm, was about an actual professional artist who made her living out of art for over two years, is relevant in her field, which is rather narrow (but no less important) and thus not picked up easily by the big media. It wasn't self-promoting or made by a friend, or by some promoter/producer/handler etc, but someone who admire the art. It seems strange in an encyclopedia of this magnitude that there wouldn't be any room for this?

Sulven (talk) 23:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think anyone significantly disagrees with Sulven's points, but none of these points satisfy WP:CREATIVE. Sashaman (talk) 05:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:26, 24 September 2008 (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.