Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vera Chapman (New Zealand 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. Consensus is that the article can be further improved, and indeed has done during the debate. The discussion is starting to descend into name calling, so I think it's best we close it now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vera Chapman (New Zealand artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

She is listed with a very short entry in two exhaustive books (books listing apparently all NZ artists from the 19th century, no matter their importance), but hasn't really received significant attention. These kind of books exist for most countries (e.g. for Belgium there is such a three part book listing 20,000+ artists, most of them not notable). From the same source given for this article, we have e.g. this entry or this entry about a non notable artist, while e.g. this one seems notable but lacks an article so far.

So inclusion in that source provides reliable information, but is hardly an indicator of notability in itself. And as we lack better, more extensive sources, it looks as if she isn't notable. Fram (talk) 08:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article was nominated for deletion a matter of minutes after it was published. It's still under construction. MurielMary (talk) 08:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at your sources, the third[1] and fifth[2] are the same, the fourth[3] is a one line mention. Which is basically the problem: she gets mentioned, as do thousands of artists over the years, but it doesn't really go beyond that. Fram (talk) 09:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. All the sources listed are different ones. 2. As Chapman has an artwork in the Supreme Court of NZ and others in the permanent collection of Hocken Library, she meets GNG as an artist. MurielMary (talk) 09:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please check you sources again. The current sources 5 ("Otago Art Society") and 7 ("Fine Arts Academy of New Zealand") are the same. Having paintings in some collections is not included as a GNG meeting criterion. You need independent sources about the person, not simply being included in a collection (is it even on display?) No one seems to have considered her works at the Hocken or the Supreme Court of any importance, since no sources discuss these works. The Hocken collection has over 17,000 artworks (and more than 1 million photographs). The Superme Court painting is there because of the importance of the sitter, Frederick Chapman (judge), who is her father. Redirecting this article to the one on her father may be the best solution here. Fram (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete sources do not support notability of this artist. NotButtigieg (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Qualifies under WP:ARTIST #4. "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." The New Zealand Academy of Fine Arts is a notable gallery as is the Centre of Contemporary Art a notable facility where notable exhibitions take place. As is the Supreme Court of New Zealand. She painted the official portrait of her father, who was the first Supreme Court Judge of New Zealand actually born in New Zealand. It would be a shame if this notable subject was deleted, especially given she is one of the few celebrated professional female painters in New Zealand in the early 20th century. She is also known as Vera Eichelbaum. Her personal papers are held in the New Zealand National Library [4]. Missvain (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also keep in mind this is a woman painter in early 20th-century New Zealand. It's common for citations to be mere mentions at times, due to the lack of in depth coverage about women in male dominated career fields. We'd have a very small amount of women painters on Wikipedia if we relied on in depth biographies as coverage, for example. Missvain (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep How important the subject of an article is is completely irrelevant. "Not important enough" is not a criterion for deletion. Of course, per GNG the a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list if has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Which is just another way of saying that if you have enough material to write an article with, it is very likely that several subject-matter-experts who we can defer that decision to found the subject "of interest". In the case of an artist, a museum curator is such a person. I think that here, we find that we both have sufficient material and a critical assessment by experts. The subject is "notable" and the article should be kept. Vexations (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as I agree with the points made by User:Missvain. Ambrosia10 (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all previous Keepers. One would hope that some of the concerns of the nominator are no longer there. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with nominator. Despite all the work put towards the referencing, it doesn't disguise the fact that the content consists of trivial mentions. WP:GNG is not met, nor WP:Artist Curiocurio (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; this article was nominated for deletion a few minutes after it was created, when it only had one reference. It now has 26. It's interesting to compare it with the other Vera Chapman, a minor fantasy novelist, whose article has been sitting for ten years with just one reference, but will probably never be nominated for deletion because she had the good sense to be English and found the Tolkien society, instead of being a 19th C New Zealand artist. It's not clear how the encyclopedia would be improved by deleting this article. --Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the quality of the sources that counts, not the quantity. If you actually read the sources, you find that she is discussed in a similar way to dozens or hundreds of other non-notable artists participating in the same exhibitions. Curiocurio (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• In response to Users:Missvain, Ambrosia10, Giantflightlessbirds, Vexations and DiamondRemley39, Although it is a truth universally acknowledged that the world was stacked so totally against career women a century ago that far fewer female than male artists had notable careers, the fact remains that artists must meet the gender-neutral standards set forth in WP:ARTIST. And this artist does not. NotButtigieg (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This artist seems sufficiently notable, and the proposer has not made a convincing case why it should be deleted. Ross Finlayson (talk) 07:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lack of significant attention in reliable, independent sources? There are many passing mentions, but nothing that makes her meet WP:BIO as far as I can see. Perhaps you (or any of the others) can give here the 2 or 3 sources which really demonstrate notability? Something like this is an extremely passing mention, and puts to rest the claims about very few woman artists in this period in NZ: this article alone mentions two female art teachers, and among the exhibitors more than 20 women as well. Fram (talk) 07:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are art students, not artists, and I doubt many of them went on to actual careers, let alone having work in three major national collections. Why does she not qualify under WP:ARTIST? —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 08:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If being in such an exhibition is not "having an actual career", then what is the evidence that Chapman had one? And what 3 major national collections? The Supreme Court is not an art collection, they have portraits of their judges just like many organisations used to do: the importance for the collection is in the sitter, not in the artist; and even then this is not an important art collection. I already discussed the Hocken Collection, her work is not on display, but is simply one of the 17,000 artworks they own (plus many more photographs and so on). Looking at WP:NARTIST, I guess we can all agree that points 1 to 3 do not apply here? Which leaves us with part 4, where her work is only in one notable gallery or museum, and there isn't displayed or even digitized, and has not received any attention. Fram (talk) 09:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • And looking at Hocken Collections, it seems to be important as a research library, not so much as an art gallery. Is her work in the permanent collection of any of the 33 actual art collections listed at Category:Art museums and galleries in New Zealand for example? Fram (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Hocken Collections are listed in Category:Art collections in New Zealand. Seems like it is an actual art collection. Their pictures collection holds more than 17,000 works.[5] Paora (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • "not so much as an art gallery"? Our own article (and note it is "Hocken Collections", not "Hocken Gallery") opens with "Hocken Collections (...formerly the Hocken Library) is a research library, historical archive, and art gallery" (emboldening mine). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Hocken is one of the country's major collections of New Zealand art. That random list of 33 is not a particularly reliable guide. You do realise, Fram, that most of an art museum's collection is not on display? And most in New Zealand aren't digitised and online? I'm giving up, since you seem determined to invent any new rules and criteria that will serve to get this woman deleted from Wikipedia. Perhaps we could have all spent our spare time doing something constructive to improve it instead of having this debate. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 09:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Artcyclopedia doesn't list it[6], and neither is it included in this long list. The Encyclopedia of New Zealand doesn't mention it in the article on art galleries and collections[7], but again describes it as an important research library[8]. Basically, your claim that the Hocken is major art collection is not supported by most (all?) sources. Fram (talk) 10:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Even a cursory glance at the Hocken's online catalogue shows that they hold many works by some of New Zealand's most significant artists, such as Colin McCahon, Frances Hodgkins, and Ralph Hotere. So to suggest that the Hocken's is not a major art collection is arrant nonsense. Paora (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't care sprouting arrant nonsense, when it is the same arrant nonsense proclaimed by good sources. They have an art collection with a few biggish names in it, that doesn't make it a major art collection. Major art collections are things like the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa or to a lesser degree Dunedin Public Art Gallery. Fram (talk) 11:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hell, I have an art collection with a few biggish names in it; this doesn't make me one of the sort of "notable galleries or museums" required by WP:ARTIST. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotButtigieg (talk • contribs) 19:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • I also want to note that the requirement in WP:ARTIST (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. is plural. Even if the Hocken library and collection qualified, it would not suffice. I cannot see that Chapman meets any of the criteria in WP:ARTIST. NotButtigieg (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • This article refers to "the major metropolitan collections residing in the Auckland Art Gallery, Te Papa Tongarewa and the Hocken collection" (emboldening mine). But perhaps The New Zealand Herald isn't a reliable source? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, that's discussing major collections of the work of one artist, McMahon, not major art collections in general. Fram (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • No, it isn't. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • User:Fram has read this accurately. Pigsonthewing is citing this source incorrectly. It fails to support the argument Pigsonthewing wants to make. NotButtigieg (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                  • No, he hasn't. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. She is listed in the Concise Dictionary of New Zealand Artists published in 2000 (page 42), and her work is held by the Hocken Collections in Dunedin and the Supreme Court in Wellington. Paora (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. So many of the references, for example 11-20, are just passing mentions of her and her work having appeared in group shows. David notMD (talk) 14:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've pondered this for a few days and have come to the conclusion that a keep vote is justified. Hocken is certainly one of the major art collections in New Zealand; the question is whether that, in conjunction with the Supreme Court painting, satisfies criterion #4. Some may have noticed the question that I put on the talk page of the article:

The National Library holds one of her paintings of her father, on "indefinite loan from the Law Society". Is that painting separate to the one hanging in the Supreme Court? If yes, this would strengthen the case for notability.

I would be surprised if that National Library listing referred to a painting hanging in the Supreme Court. I must therefore conclude that she has paintings in two major collections and criterion #4 is met. Missvain makes a very good point and I endorse her comment. What would be helpful to know is whether any of the dailies published an obituary. Unfortunately, digitisation on PapersPast has not gone beyond 1950 so we won't know, unless somebody embarks on the painstaking act of going through microfilm in the Wellington City Libraries (if those microfilm are even accessible, that is, given that the main library is permanently closed). Schwede66 04:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Schwede66 and Paora have not responded to the point made by several editors above that to passing WP:ARTIST requires that said artist has (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. courts and law libraries are not art museums.NotButtigieg (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I wish to point out that this "Vera Chapman" is not even the most notable painter named Vera Chapman. Another Vera Chapman [9] is listed on AskArt , a website where you can find listings for pretty much every artist whose work anyone buys. The vast majority of painters on AskArt lack Wikipedia pages for the perfectly good reason that they, like Chapman, are not notable by the standard of WP:ARTIST. NotButtigieg (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you searched the name in a database, found someone else by that name, and conclude that the one in the database, which has one source ("Nearly 20,000 biographies can be found in Artists in California 1786-1940 by Edan Hughes"), is more notable than this one who has an article with multiple sources? Not a fine argument. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • My argument is that the artist we are discussing here does not meet WP:ARTIST. I have searched, others have searched, and no one has been able to find the kind of evidence that meets WP:ARTIST.NotButtigieg (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your vote is that she doesn't meet the criteria. I refer to your argument beginning with "I wish to point out"--that the Vera Chapman you found is more notable than this Vera Chapman when this one has details and sources; the other appears in an entry on an art website is from one old book that includes thousands of people from California. It's poor source evaluation. That matters less than the other Veras Chapmans problem: introducing a second person by that name who, according to you, is both more notable and yet not notable enough, makes no sense. Vera Chapman #2 has nothing to do with Vera Chapman #1. Vera Chapman #2 (described as a sculptor, not a painter) does not matter here. Someone in the same field shares the same name. Neither forename nor surname is especially unusual. It's just such a random and odd thing to add to this already long discussion. And now I am part of the length for addressing it. I think I'm done here. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I brought up the "other" artist named Vera Chapman because she is a non-notable American painter of roughly the same era (1889 - 1978) as the New Zealand Vera Chapman. The American also comes up in searches [10], [11], [12], [13], she appears in Who's who in the West - 1987, Volume 21 - Page 200, as a watercolor artist. And it is the American painter, not the one from New Zealand, whose work comes up in a search of the name on images [14]. My point is that notability requires the sort of sources listed in WP:ARTIST.NotButtigieg (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment wihtout addressing notability directly, I want to note that the arguments for considering the Supreme court painting of her father as meeting WP:ARTIST ("multiple collections") are not so strong. Her father was a Supreme Court of New Zealand judge in.. wait for it... Wellington. It is highly likely that her work made it to that collection as a result. A judge is powerful position, and he would only need to direct someone to buy it and hang it up. WP:ARTIST is strong because it relies on independently curated work, not family connections. As the bio here says, "Moved to Wellington when father appointed judge there... Her portrait of her father is in Supreme Court, Wellington." ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Has works in significant collections, and her papers are archived in the National Library. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please speak to the fact that having ones papers in a library does not confer notability. And the fact that Chapman's work is not held by collections of the sort described and required by WP:ARTIST.NotButtigieg (talk) 13:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please stop hectoring everyone who disagrees with your assessment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:42, 15 January 2020 (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.