Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sue Richards (artist)

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. Cbrown1023 22:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Richards (artist)

Sue Richards (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This person is hardly notable. Superdix 20:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• My experience has been that Richards has been using Wikipedia for personal promotion (especially of her blog). To me, "Breast of Canada" seems notable, but that might be because I am also from Guelph. Remaining neutral for now, though I would be willing to move to delete if convinced. Andy Saunders 21:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The references within the article have convinced me that Sue's work has been discussed on much more than a local level and that she is suitably notable within Wikipedia. Keep. Andy Saunders 18:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've added a few of the multiple references I could find for this subject. She has been discussed in multiple, non-trivial and independent sources thus making her notable as per WP:N. This meets the primary criterion for notability and therefore the article should stay. Ccscott 22:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep does seem to be promotional, so it needs cleanup. it does seem to be notable, but it needs citations. --Buridan 12:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd like to point out some of the wordings of Wikipedia:Notability (people):

"Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work"

"Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field"

Now, as an artist, I have a really hard time seeing how she qualifies for her own page. I could very well dig up a couple of articles on my little sister (she plays basketball on the local team) in the local newspaper, without it making her notable. Here's a question: what kind of notable personality is Sue Richards? Is she a publisher? A photographer? An event manager? She hardly seems notable in any of these fields. Superdix 16:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Check out WP:N. If multiple local papers have decided that your sister is notable enough to write an article with her as the main focus (i.e. non-trival mention), you probably have a strong case that she deserves her own article. Notability due to acheivement in a profession is only one criteria for a person to merit an article. Ccscott 17:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that that is only one of the criteria. However, let's try to look at this reasonably. If we set standards that high for people within scientific professions, and even government officials, then how come a person who has been the publisher of a breast calendar deserves their own page? I was just trying to put things in perspective here. Basically, her article is a CV, the only "notable" part being the breast calendar. If we're looking for multiple independent articles on the subject of Sue Richards, so far only one has turned up. The other one had the breast calendar itself as a subject. Which means that currently, the subject of Sue Richards is not notable by WP:N. Superdix 19:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Topics can be notable that don't meet the primary criterion, but articles that reference multiple and independent, non-trivial published works are notable almost by definition. In this case, she is notable becuase both local and national newspapers have published articles that focus on her and her projects. Of course, you as an editor are entitled to your opinion as to whether the cited references are non-trivial, independent and are published in an acceptable forum. However, none of this is to say she is notable as an artist; most of the articles I read focus on her and the calendar and not her art., or does this say that the article is "good"; it clearly needs work. If you feel that the article overemphasizes her artisit abilities or accomplishments, please change it. Ccscott 20:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• A primary contributor (repeatedly so) is User:Missfebruary, hardly a coincidence. On the other hand, if there is more on the accolades she has won for work besides the calendar, the problem with conflict of interest could be minimized. Until sourced information about her other work enters the article, I'd recommend a very weak delete as work with one calendar (albeit issued over six years) is in itself insufficient for WP:BIO - otherwise all those "anonymous" compilers of calendars for Hallmark Cards and Carlton Cards would also merit Wikipedia articles. B.Wind 22:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All those "anonymous" compilers of calendars have not been discussed multiple times in various newspapers. Notability is not subjective. Ccscott 09:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you missed the point: Wikipedia:Notability (people) does put forth one important criteria: The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. Read that once more. Sue Richards should have been the primary subject, not the breast calendar. See where I'm going with this? Consider a book on Monet or Rembrandt. These publications are written on the subject of the artist, not on a particular piece of art they created. The articles listed on Sue Richards have the breast calendar as their subject (but one, from the Guelph local paper). This does not warrant a biography for Sue Richards, it warrants an article on the breast calendar. Superdix 15:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I realize the content of some of the other newspaper articles listed in the references are not accessible online, but it is clear from reading them that Sue Richards the person is discussed as a primary focus of each of the articles (i.e. in a non-trivial way). In fact they talk more about her life than the calendar. If you do not have access to a library to read them I can post them for you to judge for yourself, but I have been hesitant to do so for fear of copyright issues. I have searched wikipedia but have been unable to find any indication on policy regarding posting newspaper articles in talk pages. In any case, from my reading of all the references I still believe this person easily meets the primary notability criterion (multiple, non-trivial media publications on the subject) and therefore I maintain the article should remain. Ccscott 16:22, 16 December 2006 (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.