Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lilla von Puttkamer

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. Despite the good faith efforts presented here, I'm not convinced this artist meets our inclusion guidelines at this time. Perhaps in the future.

Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lilla von Puttkamer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This article do not contain any citations and I can find no reliable sources online. This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. The article has been tagged for attention since 2015 with no improvements WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I noticed some exhibitions in public galleries, like the Kunstverein Bochum, and Museum Kunstpalast (a very large group show), but there appears to be no discussion of her work anywhere. There is a book by Martin Leyer-Pritzkow, [1], but I can't find any libraries that have it. Some coverage in local news papers too, but nothing substantial. Vexations (talk) 12:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Should I have listed this article under Proposed deletion (PROD) instead of AFD? Looking at the article again, I think maybe that is where is should have been listed. I have read through the guidance and am still unsure how confident one should be to PROD an article. If there is no further discussion on this article will it become a soft delete? Advice welcome. Thanks WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  PROD is for uncontroversial deletion if you can be reasonably certain that nobody is going to object to deletion. BLPPROD wouldn't apply in this case, because even though nothing is listed under a References heading, there is a link to LadaProject which has biographical information on her at http://www.ladaproject.com/artists/lillavonputtkamer/ So it is not an unreferenced biography. AfD, unfortunately, has too few participants. It is easy to overwhelm it with too many nominations, but I think you were right in bringing it here. Vexations (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, book mentioned above only held by a couple of libraries, may be an exhibition catalogue for this show at a gallery called Yellow Korner Berlin? doesnt seem wikinotable. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, German WP article on von Puttkamer (here) has more (created by a SPA in 2015, may have been copied from artist's website?, unfortunately not much in the way of wikiusable references/linkes), anyway she is in collection of Berlinische Galerie (press release of exhibition of works from their collection including von Puttkamer here), and here are a couple of exhibitions that may(?) contributed to wikinotability - Ernst Museum (The Mechanics of the Canvas - group exhibition here), and Collegium Hungaricum Berlin a couple of times also here, National Art Gallery of Namibia (It’s Raining Cats and Dogs Group Exhibition here), curated by Martin Leyer-Pritzkow (here) but reckon more is needed. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The English version was created on the same date as the completely unsourced German version of the article. I moved the CV laundry list of exhibitions off the main space of the English version and on to the talk page. The link given by Coolabahapple to "It’s Raining Cats and Dogs Group Exhibition" shows that she wasn't in that show, but is part of the Stamp Alive Project. I don't see any of this elevating her to notable. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:41, 24 November 2021 (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.