Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathy Beekman
- 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Kathy Beekman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Have looked at the cited sources and searched online. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Autobiography of a non-notable artist. Edwardx (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and Illinois. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Weak Keep. Weak because it's art magazines rather than new York Times etc, but still seems notable on a small scale, as per:
- https://www.southwestart.com/events/efa-aug2014 (not a fantastic source, could lack independence)
- http://voyagedenver.com/interview/conversations-inspiring-kathy-beekman/ (an interview, not ideal)
- https://www.southwestart.com/articles-interviews/emerging-artists/artist_to_watch-2 (from 2008, 1/1/1971 date at start seems to be a web/IT error) This is significant coverage
- Mitchell, L. (2014, 08). Kathy beekman. Southwest Art, 44, 64. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/magazines/kathy-beekman/docview/1561452752/se-2 (not ideal, seems to be based on a interview with a gallery owner). I saw 3 more very similar type of articles about her work in 2012 2016 and 2017 in the same publication
- 2 mentions here, note author has same surname, Beekman, C. S. (2003). AGRICULTURAL POLE RITUALS AND RULERSHIP IN LATE FORMATIVE CENTRAL JALISCO. Ancient Mesoamerica, 14(2), 299-318. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/agricultural-pole-rituals-rulership-late/docview/196682410/se-2
- her work is mentioned here, it is briefly mentioned: EXHIBITIONISM A PEEK AT WHAT'S SHOWING AROUND TOWN. (2010, May 28). The Santa Fe New Mexican Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/exhibitionism-peek-at-whats-showing-around-town/docview/331677549/se-2
- She's one of 28 artists featured here, significant? I'm unsure. Pastels. Southwest Art, [s. l.], v. 43, n. 5, p. 132–139, 2013. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asu&AN=90395200&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 16 jul. 2022.
- So basically I've got one piece of significant coverage in Southwest Art. I'm assuming it's a reliable source. And a bunch of less significant coverage which I am arguing adds up to notability. I know this is not the strongest argument, it's one of those borderline cases. CT55555 (talk) 11:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - My guess is the article is either a promotional effort WP:PROMO by her gallery, or it is indeed an autobiography due to the excessive personal details in the article. Most of the article is sourced to her own book, "Prosper: A Success Book for Artists". Re: the refs above that CT55555 kindly researched in a BEFORE, Citation 1 is not an article, it's a press release for her show embellished with content from the artist's page at Evergreen Gallery.[1]; It does not count as a review of her work. Not independent. Citation 2 is an interview, primary source, not independent, doesn't count toward notability. Citation 3 reads like a preview profile for an upcoming show - again a modified press release or taken from her website - I'm not sure that it is a critical/analytical review of her work since it was released a month before the show took place (native advertising?) Citation 4, this too is advertorial content IMO, and the mentions or calendar items (6, 7) do not help matters. Citation 5 is a primary source, she and someone with the same last name drew the illustrations, it's not a review about her illustration work. She has had shows, but that is just what 100's of thousands of artists do WP:MILL, I can find nothing that distinguishes her as a notable artist who is widely recognized and made a contribution to a enduring historical record in her field. There is a lack of independent SIGCOV over a period of time; there is no content in art history books, critical/analytical reviews, notable museum collections. Fails to meet WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST at this time. Netherzone (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- My argument to keep very much hinges on the reliability of my source #3. How certain are you that it's promo? (I'm not doubting you, I'm unsure, which is why I said "weak"). CT55555 (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- @CT55555, thank you for your thoughtful question. I considered #3 quite a bit before writing my thoughts above, since it did seem like the best of the bunch. The reason why I think it is an embellished press-release or native advertising - a preview of an "emerging artist" - is that it was written for the November 2008 issue of Southwest Art, but the show did not even happen until Dec. 22, 2008 – January 1, 2009. It's advertising for a future event. The commercial art world is a industry that showcases, promotes and sells art. Previews like this can boost sales and galleries (and artist) are very much aware of this. Commercial galleries that purchase regular advertising with art magazines are often "thanked" by the publication by such native advertising whether paid for placement or not. It's actually quite a common practice, no cynicism involved, it's just a reality of the industry. One must remember that galleries are essentially stores that sell art instead of pillowcases. Whereas museums and non-profit art spaces are educational institutions. There is not a speck of art historical critical analysis in this "article" other than to state her work is "reminiscent of Edward Hopper". The "article" is primarily about her childhood and student experiences; to my mind it's not serious art criticism at all. Even if it were, one source is not enough to pass GNG or NARTIST. Hope that helps to understand where my comments are coming from! Netherzone (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- That's fair. And convincing. But does include assumptions. Fair ones. And assumptions are fine, AGF is about editors, not sources. Nonetheless, I'll switch to open-minded and abstain. Will strike out my weak keep. CT55555 (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- @CT55555, thank you for your thoughtful question. I considered #3 quite a bit before writing my thoughts above, since it did seem like the best of the bunch. The reason why I think it is an embellished press-release or native advertising - a preview of an "emerging artist" - is that it was written for the November 2008 issue of Southwest Art, but the show did not even happen until Dec. 22, 2008 – January 1, 2009. It's advertising for a future event. The commercial art world is a industry that showcases, promotes and sells art. Previews like this can boost sales and galleries (and artist) are very much aware of this. Commercial galleries that purchase regular advertising with art magazines are often "thanked" by the publication by such native advertising whether paid for placement or not. It's actually quite a common practice, no cynicism involved, it's just a reality of the industry. One must remember that galleries are essentially stores that sell art instead of pillowcases. Whereas museums and non-profit art spaces are educational institutions. There is not a speck of art historical critical analysis in this "article" other than to state her work is "reminiscent of Edward Hopper". The "article" is primarily about her childhood and student experiences; to my mind it's not serious art criticism at all. Even if it were, one source is not enough to pass GNG or NARTIST. Hope that helps to understand where my comments are coming from! Netherzone (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- My argument to keep very much hinges on the reliability of my source #3. How certain are you that it's promo? (I'm not doubting you, I'm unsure, which is why I said "weak"). CT55555 (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - My guess is the article is either a promotional effort WP:PROMO by her gallery, or it is indeed an autobiography due to the excessive personal details in the article. Most of the article is sourced to her own book, "Prosper: A Success Book for Artists". Re: the refs above that CT55555 kindly researched in a BEFORE, Citation 1 is not an article, it's a press release for her show embellished with content from the artist's page at Evergreen Gallery.[1]; It does not count as a review of her work. Not independent. Citation 2 is an interview, primary source, not independent, doesn't count toward notability. Citation 3 reads like a preview profile for an upcoming show - again a modified press release or taken from her website - I'm not sure that it is a critical/analytical review of her work since it was released a month before the show took place (native advertising?) Citation 4, this too is advertorial content IMO, and the mentions or calendar items (6, 7) do not help matters. Citation 5 is a primary source, she and someone with the same last name drew the illustrations, it's not a review about her illustration work. She has had shows, but that is just what 100's of thousands of artists do WP:MILL, I can find nothing that distinguishes her as a notable artist who is widely recognized and made a contribution to a enduring historical record in her field. There is a lack of independent SIGCOV over a period of time; there is no content in art history books, critical/analytical reviews, notable museum collections. Fails to meet WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST at this time. Netherzone (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - I cannot find any biographical information, nor examples of important exhibitions or collections. She appears to be a successful talented working artist, but not enough notability for an article WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete No references to good third party reliable sources, it's all self-published or advertising. Elspea756 (talk) 04:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Not meeting notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 06:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON for WP:NARTIST. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. I haven't found anything that would lead me to believe she could pass any of the notability guidelines. Jacona (talk) 11:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- 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.