Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adelaide Deming

Adelaide Deming

Adelaide Deming (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)

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST, artist appears to have been a minor local one with no notable works or achievements. Article also appears to lean on WP:INVALIDBIO as the subject appears to had un-notable correspondence (e.g. writing Booker T Washington for a signed photo) with more notable people than herself. No significant treatment in secondary sources. GretLomborg (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I've started adding reviews of her work and other sources about her to the article. In addition, there are a lot of hits on Newspapers.com. Please look at new info before !voting. There's more to add, but I can't finish tonight. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Her work was reviewed and noted by newspapers in New York and Los Angeles. She was regularly singled out for mention of her work by American Art News and was first woman to win the Beall Award for Watercolors. She passes ARTIST for the reviews of her work. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • In what way is the Beal award notable? She clearly fails WP:ARTIST: 1) she is not regarded as an important figured and does not appear to have been widely cited, 2) she does not appear to have developed a new significant technique, 3) she has not created a significant, well known body of work, and 4) her work was not a significant part of a substantial exhibition (the cited ones had many dozens or artists and she wasn't specially emphasized, with the exception of an afternoon one at her place of employment), she has not won significant critical attention (what's been cited consists of single sentences here and there), and she is not represented in "the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums" (her work is part of the collection of her town's local historical society, to which she apparently donated some of it). - GretLomborg (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Just enough independent sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC).
• Keep Excellent job on expansion Megalibrarygirl That (copies of) her papers are in the American Museum of Art clearly shows they think she was notable. As do repeated reviews of her work: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Meets GNG (and Artist, though that is only a secondary requirement). I'll try to look in tomorrow and incorporate these sources. SusunW (talk) 23:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Those sources do not establish notability. Archival records are primary sources cannot be used to establish notability (per WP:BASIC) regardless of where they are. Those newspaper articles you cite do not constitute significant coverage, and appear to be trivial mentions (WP:SIGCOV/WP:GNG): they are lists of several dozen artist names paired little more than the names of their paintings and an adjective or two. Here are some examples: "Adelaide Deming has a 'Winter in New England' of exceedingly good contour and appeal" (about midway though a clipping) and "Moods of nature and times of day are valuable in the six landscape subjects by Adelaide Deming" (nearly at the end of another). Those are clearly trivial mentions. - GretLomborg (talk) 06:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment: you are mistaking using the primary source and using the collection of the primary source by a major museum. They are two different things. Artifacts of notable people, whether they be paintings (also original works) or papers, which have been selected by a museum of the caliber of the Smithsonian are a clear indication that the person is notable. Do you really believe that a major museum would collect artifacts they did not deem noteworthy? Trivial mention is she went out for beers, she had on a blue dress. The notices on her works and exhibits; however are carry more weight. Of all the contributors, her works were highlighted by commentary. Significance or trivia has little to with length, but has to do with depth of content, which is precisely why the guidelines allow combining sources to meet GNG. SusunW (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Her papers were selected by an archive of a "museum of the caliber of the Smithsonian." Archives keep primary-source artifacts for all kinds of reasons, many (most?) of which have nothing to do with the notability of the subject. For example, she clearly corresponded with people more notable than herself, such as Booker T. Washington, one can speculate that the letters may have been kept because of that connection (or some other), which is good enough for archives but fails WP:INVALIDBIO. The fact that there's a collection named after her may be misleading you: archival science greatly values keeping the "collection" of records obtained from a source as an intact unit: they'd do the same thing with a non-notable janitor's papers. They did not choose to acquire any of her art in their permanent collection, which is the actual criteria for WP:ARTIST. The presence of a sentence with an adjective of "commentary" cannot be the bar for significant coverage, especially considering the standards of early 20th-century writing. - GretLomborg (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment: except that in this case your description is inaccurate. The Smithsonian Art Museum was specifically established to gather source materials to encourage the study of American artists. They partnered with museums and libraries to determine what material were available and target their acquisitions. Interestingly, this article specifically mentions the microfilm records of Deming. [6] SusunW (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment it appears there is significant amount of WP:Puffery being attempted to save this article. A lot of new sources have been added and strung together in an attempt to create the impression of significant coverage, but close inspection shows that these are all trivial mentions that have been fully or nearly-fully quoted in the wiki article. As per WP:ROUTINE: "routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article", and most of the sources count as routine coverage of art exhibitions. I edited the article to minimize some of it, but a lot still remains. - GretLomborg (talk) 07:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

  GretLomborg, there is no puffery, and I would ask you to assume Good Faith. I went into databases and found information that the original author of the article may not have had access to and have used them to show notability. I am sorry that you are mistaking the significance of a person's artwork being singled out for review in group showings for so-called puffery. Deming's work was consistently singled out of large exhibitions in each of those situations--to be specifically commented on in particular in a group show is very significant and nontrivial. Her work was considered worthy of notice among hundreds of paintings in these situations. The fact that particular notice of her work goes on over time and across the country by RS show that she was a notable painter. It also goes against your original assertion that she was a "minor local" artist. I can see how you may not be familiar with the Beall award (I wasn't either). It's the top prize for the American Watercolor Society for artwork shown in their yearly events which have been notable and covered since the 1900s (as seen in the references I added). You may assert that these sources do not establish notability, but you are incorrect. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)