Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Leighton

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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Leighton (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)

The subject has had some impressive patrons, but her work does not appear to have won significant critical attention, nor represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. Likely fails both WP:CREATIVE and WP:NACTOR. – Ploni (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Authors, United Kingdom, and England. Ploni (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There was a BBC news television piece about her in 1975 (don't let "Twitter" in the url fool you). While some is primary interview, there is also secondary conent. https://archive.org/details/twitter-674991413969326080 She was famous in a time when sources were offline, which makes verification of the current offline sources impossible, but I assume good faith for offline sources in this context. Especially having found the BBC footage, which is a first in this kind of situation for me, suggesting she is more notable than normal. CT55555 (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further to that, she is the subject of a painting that is in a museum. Details from a primary source, but seems like an unlikely lie https://www.aahorsham.co.uk/content/saraleighton

Someone selling pictures of her in 2014 https://twitter.com/davidharpertv/status/455986892102971392

1971 Daily Telegraph mentions her only briefly, but says she has paintings on display all over the world: https://archive.org/stream/TheDailyTelegraph1971UKEnglish/Jul%2019%201971%2C%20The%20Daily%20Telegraph%2C%20%2336140%2C%20UK%20%28en%29_djvu.txt CT55555 (talk) 00:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Were you able to find any independent secondary sources? I'm not sure her being the subject of a painting that (she believes) is in a museum, or one that was once offered for sale, is sufficient to meet the notability guidelines for an artist. It sounds like she may in fact meet WP:GNG, I have so far been unable to find the newspaper articles cited, so I'm not sure if the coverage in them is significant. –Ploni (talk) 04:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Being the subject of art surely does not pass WP:ARTIST but I think (am not certain) it's relevant for WP:GNG. We tend to consider words about someone, I'm not used to assessing images about people. At risk of getting philosophical, painting pictures does require a lot more effort than writing.

  I contend that the BBC piece includes secondary elements in the introductory section. I found an old book that wrote about her being mentored, but Google Books didn't let me see enough to mention here. So I don't have much to add beyond what I said above. CT55555 (talk) 04:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. She's one of those cases where even if no individual secondary source has written about her in depth, so many, very many, sources have quoted her or written about her in extremely notable situations that she must qualify as notable. The queen mother portrait is probably sufficient on its own: this is sourced, and frankly it requires a phenomenal level of naivete to believe that even pre-internet an unimportant artist could just rock up at the gates of Buckingham palace waving a pencil around and expect to be allowed to sketch a key royal; getting a painting into Buckingham palace is just about as hard as getting one into the national gallery (which would instantly qualify her for notability). But even if we consider her artistic career to be only marginally-notable, we also have some authorship going on, and some impact as an actress, and the sum of all these nearly-notable activities, all of which are recorded in non-primary sources, must add up to overall notability. Besides which, our readers are quite likely to come across her and wonder who she is, and what else she has done with her life. We should tell them. Elemimele (talk) 10:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Good Lord, chaps, but she only played Anne in the 1952 TV series Anne of Green Gables! Not the best of sources, mind. But wasn't she beautiful? Her stage name was Shirley Lorimer, although she was born Shirley M. I. Loraine - a woman of many parts. Here's her at Getty Images as a schoolgirl and here at Alamy when she was 18 years old. Here's one of her pieces, listed at Nicholson's right here! So we have a bona-fide artist and actress who is notably notable, I'd say. And quite a fun bit of BEFORE, too! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all of the above. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2022 (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.