Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Steele

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) 05:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Steele

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

GNG fail. Article sourced by many event announcements and not enough in-depth RS. It's worth noting that it is the product of a blocked paid editor. We can convert COI puffed-up articles into good articles where the subject is notable; in this case they do not appear to be. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You bring up a good point ThatMontrealIP but without the COI would anyone care enough to convert it? MaskedSinger (talk) 04:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTPROMO. Fails WP:ARTIST.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, what a wonderful artist! Her art is so evocative, i especially like Dark Iris and Paphiopedilum (and this book cover looks great), but she doesn't appear to meet WP:CREATIVE ie. wikisignificant/notable exhibitions/reviews, represented in wikinotable galleries/museums, so although some of the article's references look okay, they are not enough so a delete. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Her artwork is very interesting but the level of notoriety does not seem sufficient to sustain a Wiki article. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She doesn't have to meet WP:NARTIST, she could meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. I have added a few sources and some info/quotes from them. In terms of reliable, independent, secondary sources, we now have The Missoulian (a report of a one day workshop Steele gave in Montana, so SIGCOV); Detroit Free Press; Philadelphia Inquirer (also SIGCOV); St. Louis Post-Dispatch; The Washington Post (that is short, but given that its review of calendars said hers has "paintings of the flower as a sex object", I think it may well have contributed to her notability in the 1980s!); and the Standard-Examiner, Utah. I don't think Artist Magazine is a reliable, independent source (it seems to be the work of one woman). What about Watercolor magazine, which is currently source 3? That looks like it could be SIGCOV, but I don't know anything about the magazine. I haven't found her in any permanent collections yet, but without clues about any galleries or museums which might hold her work (if any do), it's a bit hit and miss searching for any. RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos on your additions to the article. I think this is is one of those cases where GNG might be met, if one stretches things a bit. There are some local reviews and some other sources that might make it. On the other hand, which is the hand I !voted with, there is nothing here (a colleciton, a serious award, a shows in major institutions etc) to clearly push my opinion to keep. If we accept this kind of article, we will be publishing many more articles on run-of-the-mill watercolourists; the standard needs to be higher than BASIC here. The fact that she publishes calendars is not that notable: I could start doing that tomorrow. Her own book is used as a named ref three or four times. I very much doubt you will find her in any collections, as she is just a good watercolourist, as opposed to an innovative painter. But that's opinion. Perhaps the greatest evidence that there is not enough here is that you are not !voting keep. If RebeccaGreen cannot find convincing sources, who can? (That is a compliment, by the way.)ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:53, 18 July 2019 (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.